I had a large amount of FF points just get wiped because I didn’t spend them. I didn’t know that was a thing.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Australian Economics
- Thread starter 1eyedtiger
- Start date
And that’s what they want to do to thousands of FF flyers who couldn’t use their points during Covid.
So, they make it near impossible to use them in the first place and then provide no time credit when you couldn’t because of Covid either. Unreal.
That’s why FF flyers are up in arms and there’s calls for the whole program to be investigated. From memory it already has been and they had to make changes. But Joyce being Joyce and the nasty person he is, he just can’t help himself so there’s calls again.
That's always the risk. For spending I've found a credit card that collects points that don't expire, then you can transfer to Mile when you need them. Points from flights always have a time limit but SQ has a decent length and during COVID they kept extending the expiry date so all good
No,
Superannuation is for retirement income. The savings proposal by Keynes was to restrict demand (which is what raising interest rates is supposed to do) when there is inflation and the savings are released to those who put the money in to encourage increased demand (like reducing interest rates) when the economy is not growing. The main difference is where the money goes and where it ends up. Under the interest rate method the money goes to banks who increase their profits, with the compulsory saving idea the money is compulsorily saved and returns to the person who earned it when the inflation is under control.
Of course, no government would have the guts to do this and the right wing media would go apesh!t with a scare campaign. But, really, it would be much better for 99% of people than the way inflation is dealt with at the moment.
DS
Geez, the right wing media have spun this story very well, haven’t they? It’s a bit like the franking credits saga that got people to vote Liberal in 2019, even though they have never owned shares.
The mega rich are using super as a tax haven. There is something like 90,000 people with $2 million or more in super that will be affected by any potential changes Chalmers is talking about. It makes total sense and you have nothing to worry about.
What worries me far more is the estimated 66% of the working population that has less than $100,000 in super. That really, really shocked me. And reinforces to me once and for all that governments should never allow people to access their super unless in extreme circumstances (ie. a terminal illness diagnosis).
Labor hints at $3m super cap, but no other changes
Capping superannuation balances at $3 million looks the most likely change at the May budget as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese sought to reassure voters.
Only 36,000 with balances above $3M, sort of wish it was more. Probably not going to raise enough money is the only issue. They should be more aggressive.
Hopefully they do introduce some changes, "cheap" housing, free education & super concessions have allowed so many in the 55 plus age bracket to create comfortable financial positions.
Agree with making accessing super harder, I know heaps of people that got $20,000 out during covid and wasted it. It was a free for all. Sometimes you need to protect people from themselves. A guy who works part-time for us has a gambling problem. He is currently living in his car after accessing his super and blowing it. He is late 40's.
Labor hints at $3m super cap, but no other changes
Capping superannuation balances at $3 million looks the most likely change at the May budget as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese sought to reassure voters.www.afr.com
Only 36,000 with balances above $3M, sort of wish it was more. Probably not going to raise enough money is the only issue. They should be more aggressive.
Hopefully they do introduce some changes, "cheap" housing, free education & super concessions have allowed so many in the 55 plus age bracket to create comfortable financial positions.
Agree with making accessing super harder, I know heaps of people that got $20,000 out during covid and wasted it. It was a free for all. Sometimes you need to protect people from themselves. A guy who works part-time for us has a gambling problem. He is currently living in his car after accessing his super and blowing it. He is late 40's.
It seems with money some paternalism is a good thing. It should be more efficient than raising tax and then paying benefits to people who have retired but I think the issue is a lot of people can't do basic maths so just haven't done the sums to show what it needs to be self sufficient.
Getting your super and blowing it on gambling is just depressing - but also feeds the whole system for shareholders in gambling companies who get a nice dividend. Super in general relies on the infinite growth model of capitalism which in itself can't work forever but probably more in the 50-300 year timescale..
I read once that the ability to delay gratification is what separates humans from animals.
I'm approaching late 40s. I have 19.5 work years left if I wanna retire at 67. But I am targeting 62 (it’ll realistically be somewhere in between).
Taking out the $20,000 during COVID was never a consideration for me. It would mean delaying my retirement by 1-2 years. My partner is a few years older than me, so the earlier I can retire, the better. If I can’t retire at 62, then I hope I am working on reduced hours
Yeh, one almost wants the property market to collapse so there is some punishment to those taking advantage of it. It only works when the underlying asset rises in price.
I think its small fry - You could minimise the tax aspect / cap it a certain amount but still allow any accumulated losses to be deducted off any capital gain (which would be fair). If you took it away rents will have to increase and/or property values decrease a little - but I think net effect will basically be most of the negative gearing saving by the government will get passed on to the renter and a small bit drops because property prices drop a little.
Inheriting assets without capital gains is the mega loophole though. Not negative gearing. Concentrates capital with those families who already have it.
We also have complete capital gains exemptions on PPOR which is a big loophole as renters don't get this benefit - also concentrating capital with those who already have it.
I like these rules because they benefit me, and self interest is a hard one to overcome but it's not hard to see what they do at a macro level.
They do reward saving, paying off your debt and being responsible with your money though. They also reward your kids if you never sell your property. They clearly reward anyone who has a parent who owned their property. Tatslotto in disguise.
Capital gains on PPOR would however I think have very bad externalities and freeze (much like stamp duty does) the desire of people to move - because basically its a tax on moving house. I think we are better off slowly moving to a broadly based land tax on any PPOR. Given it would be based on the value of the property then as its value rises, the amount of tax would also rise meaning if you are overcapitalised (single person living in a 10 bedroom) then you are more likely to downsize.
Negative Gearing has had a significant impact in the ridiculous levels house prices are in Australia. I've always felt an easy fix is to ring fence negative gearing to a single asset. Allowing claims to be made against the revenue that investment property makes. Not pooling negative gearing across multiple assets.
So on top of the 12% of wages forced savings of Super, from which the Super funds make gazillions in fees n charges whether they make money or not. Plus the various Govts lining up like dirty cockaroaches constantly fiddling n nibbling away at the Super regulations and taxes.
This Keynes bloke reckons it would be a great idea to force us to save an even further % of our earnings in another special form of managed fee gouging fund so we can spend it when some Govt cockaroach decides the economy's struggling enough that we can have permission to spend our savings to fix the economy.
Yeah Nah. Rather take my own chances with my money.
Yeah, but taking this not on an individual level, what you are effectively saying is that rather than forced savings we just give the money to the banks, that is what raising interest rates does..
Fine if that is your opinion, but I would prefer to get the money back later than just give it to the banks.
DS
Sorry mate, this just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Private super funds yes, they charge too much and they perform below par. But the industry funds, the biggest ones by far and the ones that anyone with a brain is in, are not for profit and have delivered good returns for decades. My industry fund is extremely good. Been with them 20 years and constantly impressed and surprised at how well they do. Their fees are low, and their performance is high.
The Coalition hates them because their mates in the banking industry don't get a cut, or at least the extortionate cut that they feel entitled to, and they empower workers.
Last edited:
With only 36,000 balances of over $3mill, it's gunna cost the Govt more to administer the cap than they'll claw back.Labor hints at $3m super cap, but no other changes
Capping superannuation balances at $3 million looks the most likely change at the May budget as Prime Minister Anthony Albanese sought to reassure voters.
Only 36,000 with balances above $3M, sort of wish it was more. Probably not going to raise enough money is the only issue. They should be more aggressive.
Hopefully they do introduce some changes, "cheap" housing, free education & super concessions have allowed so many in the 55 plus age bracket to create comfortable financial positions.
Agree with making accessing super harder, I know heaps of people that got $20,000 out during covid and wasted it. It was a free for all. Sometimes you need to protect people from themselves. A guy who works part-time for us has a gambling problem. He is currently living in his car after accessing his super and blowing it. He is late 40's.
Wonder if the Govt will allow for inflation regarding their cap level. Twenty years time from now $3mill will only be worth the equivalent of $2mill now, bet the bastards don't.
Damn, musta forgot to hit post on this comment last night. Tonight's news the Govt wont be indexing the cap for inflation, so in twenty years time there's gunna be a shitload more people cracking the $3mill cap n paying more tax on their super n in fifty years time everyone will be paying more tax on their $3 mill super which will by then be worth not much at all. Same system as the old tax bracket creep as wages increased, more n more people on basic incomes hoovered up into the pay more net.
TM there are no votes in tax indexation, but plenty of votes in tax cuts.
They will index it occasionally, but it won't be automatic or regular, they will do it as an announceable and call it a tax cut. Politics 101, get a good headline out of it.
In any case, it is good policy, those with huge super balances don't need the tax concessions, and 3 million is way more than you need.
DS
They will index it occasionally, but it won't be automatic or regular, they will do it as an announceable and call it a tax cut. Politics 101, get a good headline out of it.
In any case, it is good policy, those with huge super balances don't need the tax concessions, and 3 million is way more than you need.
DS
Can’t disagree with 3 million being more than enough. If you live to 100 and just spend it down and assume you keep growing what you have left at inflation it’s 75 k/year of after tax money for someone who probably owns their own property.
Only 2 mill. That's a disgrace. Elder abuse. I wouldn't even bother collecting it.
