on โ03-09-2014 10:11 AM
We've dodged a bullet.
Had compulsory super contributions climbed as legislated, Australian workers would have lost 0.5 per cent of wages from their next pay increase, 0.5 per cent from the following one then 0.5 per cent from each of the following three. By 2019 they would be earning 2.5 per cent less than if the government had left compulsory super alone.
Labor legislated to increase compulsory super recklessly. After being stalled at 9 per cent of pay since 2002, Labor wanted to lift it to 12 per cent, lifting it at first by 0.25 per cent of pay in June 2013 and 2014 then by 0.5 per cent in each of the next five years.
Labor knew the money would come out of wage rises. Its superannuation minister Bill Shorten said so.
But he said we would get healthy wages increases nonetheless. He told Fairfax Radio in 2012 the impost was just "a quarter of a per cent"
"So I'm assuming without, you know, and again this is a forecast, I'm assuming that wages in 2013-14 will probably move somewhere between 3 and 4 per cent. I am assuming that a quarter of per cent of that 3 to 4 per cent may well go into your compulsory savings, which is concessionary taxed, so that's a plus."
It didn't sound that bad. But he was wrong.
In 2013-14 wages climbed by just 2.6 per cent. Prices climbed 3 per cent, meaning real wages went backwards.
One of the reasons they went backwards was that employers were asked to fork out an extra 0.25 per cent for super on July 2013 and knew they would be again on July 2014.
From next year they were to be asked to fork out twice as much extra each year, an extra 0.5 per cent for each of the next five years.
Had it happened, the regular imposts would have depressed wage increases and quite possibly depressed real wages for half a decade.
The Henry Tax Review found against any further increase in the super contributions beyond 9 per cent. It said, although 12 per cent would increase employees retirement incomes in retirement, it would do so "by reducing their standard of living before retirement".
The Coalition has pushed the whole thing out into the never never. Super contributions won't begin climbing again until 2021.
After that they are legislated to climb by 0.5 per cent a year until they reach 12 per cent, but it's a fair chance they never will. Anyone who wants to save extra is welcome to. The Coalition and Clive Palmer has made it more likely they'll have the wage increases to afford it.
And those wage increases will be taxed at standard rates, rather than lightly taxed as would have been extra super, strengthening the government's finances.
Maintaining the low income super rebate, the income support bonus and the schoolkids bonus until after the next election also makes sense. People can vote on whether they want them to stay.
The compromise leaves the government $7 billion worse off than if it had got what it wanted but $10 billion better off than if it had got nothing at all. Those figures cover the next four years. The government says, a decade on, its projections look pretty much as at budget time.
Peter Martin is economics editor of The Age (a good left leaning Fairfax news paper)
Twitter: @1petermartin
on โ03-09-2014 02:05 PM
on โ03-09-2014 02:22 PM
on โ03-09-2014 03:17 PM
There is much to look forward to isn't there? (said with sarcasm in case you missed it)
If you are 50 years and under, you have to work until you are 70 if you want to eat and after you retire the pension will barely help you buy food scraps let alone pay the rent.
And if you do have super, you can be guaranteed that it will not cover your expenses when it is time to finally claim it.
on โ03-09-2014 03:35 PM
well that didn't take long....
Employers say they cannot guarantee wage rises after super delay
on โ03-09-2014 05:46 PM
Send the super bill to Shorten
THEREโS a simple but punishing point to be made to those bleating about the Government postponing the increase in the super levy: direct your anger at Opposition Leader Bill Shorten.
For there is one reason and one reason only for this deal with Clive and his four PUPpets โ itโs the Oppositionโs refusal to allow the Government to deliver on its election promise to abolish the mining tax.
If we had a responsible Opposition and a responsible Opposition leader, who, yes, exercised their right and responsibility to oppose, but were also prepared to let the Government govern and deliver on its mandate, we would not be held hostage to the peculiar whims of Clive.
Let me make three other points.
For a government thatโs supposedly been inept and unable to deliver, itโs actually not doing too badly.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/business/send-the-super-bill-to-shorten/story-fni0d8gi-1227045600677
Itโs got two โ and the most important two โ of its three big promises up. It stopped the boats and axed the โ big bad, and utterly pointless โ carbon tax. Itโs now also axed the second, lesser bit of that tax promise; while the savings will make some as big a contribution to cutting the deficit as the high-income levy.
Secondly, those bleating the loudest have the biggest snouts in the mandatory superannuation trough.
Banks, advisers, managers and all the rest already share around $20 billion every year from super fees; theyโll just have to wait longer before they get their hands on the extra $7 billion or so that will flow with a higher levy.
Third, this issue of increasing the levy can now go into the pot where it should always have been placed first. This is a total review of superannuation โ how much should go in, what are the tax incentives, and how it all knits with social welfare.
This review must be bonded with a similar comprehensive review into taxes and the tax system
on โ03-09-2014 05:51 PM
on โ03-09-2014 05:53 PM
@debra9275 wrote:
There is a hashtag on twitter about all the funny things that are Labor's fault, hope you've seen it, it's hysterical
whats a "hashtag" and whats a "twitter" ?
on โ03-09-2014 05:54 PM
โ03-09-2014 06:11 PM - edited โ03-09-2014 06:14 PM
How does one, who is able to use a computer and has internet access not know what Twitter is?
You don't have to sign up or read it to know what it is.
OP, you have even given a reference to it yourself in the opening post.
Peter Martin is economics editor of The Age
Twitter: @1petermartin
on โ03-09-2014 06:12 PM