On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 01:27:09 GMT, "H.D." <herpem@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>The Coalition doesn't want workers to be self reliant and look after
their
>own retirement. That is the reason the Labor party had to start
compulsery
>super.
errm ... but prior to that, didn't we have "super" in the form of a
guaranteed Age Pension funded by income taxes? And was that tax not
compulsory?
What modern "compulsory super" does is defer some of our before-tax
income to a future date ... how is that any different from the
government simply deducting additional income tax to fund a guaranteed
aged pension for each worker? Not that different at all.
Now if you announce a tax "cut", but force workers to contribute that
"cut" back into their super, which then reduces Age Pension benefits
for the worker, you're actually reducing government liabilities at the
same time.
So in terms of net retirement income, the worker is no better off,
plus the net cost to the government is zero ... now where was that tax
cut exactly? ;-)
Personally, I'm not against the idea of forced retirement saving in
one form or another (whether "compulsory super" or the Age Pension
funded through income taxes), nor am I against sup****ting additional
retirement saving for higher paid workers through concessional tax
arrangements ... but please let's not pretend it would be the same as
the real tax cuts the ALP campaigned on. Not even close.
|
