News

NewsCuts to Super: what they could mean for you
Cuts to Super: what they could mean for you

Cuts to Super: what they could mean for you

100271122-broken-nest-egg-gettyp.600x400Some Australian workers aged over 50 will be $20,000 or more worse off after an unexpected deal between the Government, the Palmer United Party and crossbench Senators.

The last-minute deal on Tuesday night means the planned increases to compulsory superannuation contributions from 9 to 12 per cent have been delayed by 6 years.

If you’re still working, your Super contributions now won’t rise again until 2021.

3.6 million low-income workers, including over 2 million women, will be further hit, as they will also lose $500 per year when the Low Income Superannuation Contribution is abolished in 2017.

So what’s changed?

The amount of money employers are required to contribute to Superannuation has slowly been increasing from 9 to 12%.

Since July 1 this year, employers have been required to pay a minimum of 9.5% of earnings into superannuation. The minimum amount of superannuation contributions your employer had to pay would’ve increased to 12 per cent by 2019.

The Government’s deal with the Palmer United Party means the increases will be delayed and won’t reach 12 per cent until 2025.

According to research by Industry Super Australia (ISA), for a 50-year-old on $100,000 a year, it will mean almost $20,000 less in contributions by the retirement age of 67.

What about the Low Income Superannuation Contribution?

Australian workers who earn up to $37,000 get a tax rebate known as the Low Income Superannuation Contribution (LISC).

This means the Government pays up to $500 each year into the superannuation accounts of low-income earners to help them save for their retirement.

Under the new deal this contribution will be abolished.

The abolition of the LISC is particular unfair to women, as they make up two-thirds of the 3.6 million lowest paid workers.

The deal was struck so that the Government could abolish the mining tax, and the crossbench Senators such as Clive Palmer could save the Schoolkids Bonus, as this story explains.

The Government argues we will have more money in our pockets in the short-term even if we have less to retire on. What do you think?

Originally posted on .

Join the conversation

FiftyUp Club
Cuts to Super: what they could mean for you

Share your views with other members. 

Want to leave a comment? or .
Read our moderation policy here.
John
John from NSW commented:

Firstly, this was a promise by the Gillard that never saw the light of day like many other promises. Secondly, It is smal businees that had to pay for this initiative and we can't afford it. The money just doesn't magically appear. Small business would have had to increase their costs, therefore creating inflation, therefore encouraging the Reserve Bank to increase interest rates. Seriously, the policy was flawed from the outset and never thought through. 

Theo
Theo from NSW commented:

You are right Karen but it was Clive Palmer that did that and the Government has to weigh up what is better for the country as a whole when negotiating, the same as you would in your household budget. Sometimes you have to do things even though you don't like it but it works out better on the whole and the bottom line in the short to medium term. Once you have things back under control you can revisit it and re-evaluate. 

Theo
Theo from NSW commented:

You reap what you sow, you sow weeds you get weeds. The old saying give a man a fish he'll eat for a day, teach him how to fish he'll eat for a lifetime. 

Karen
Karen from NSW commented:

if the government wants to cut down on the aged pension if future, they should not have delayed the increase in compulsory super. The only way to to cut the government pension is for people to fund their own pensions. Super is the best way of doing this, we also need to make sure people are limited to how much they can take out of their pensions as lump sums as we don't want people retiring and redeeming a large chunk of the funds and end up with government having to finance the rest of the retirement. 

Theo
Theo from NSW commented:

Agree Gillian, if you want, want, want then work, work, work. It's not up to others to give, give, give. Welfare doesn't last for ever, look at Greece, do you really want this country to go bankrupt you want and want. I thought our generation would be a bit smarter then that, it's something I'd expect from gen Y. LOL 

Gillian
Gillian from QLD commented:

I can't understand all this whinging and whining over such an issue. It's not the government creating less retirement income. Why can't an individual take responsibility for his/ her own finances? If pre-tax voluntary superannuation contributions are made, less tax is paid on income earnings. If contributions are made post-tax, these can be claimed as tax deductions in the tax return. Government policy has made this possible. Why wish for a nanny state? 

Theo
Theo from NSW commented:

Agree Bob, you are not going to make the poor richer by making the rich poor. It is the rich that make the poor rich if they want to get off their backsides and do some work provided by the rich. If business goes well we all do well, I think you had your handouts from the last governments and now it's time to pay it back as you cannot sustain the free lunch forever. 

Theo
Theo from NSW commented:

It's funny how people now blame the government when it is the Palmer United party who killed it. There were no such problems when our previous government blew all our money and spiraled us into debt, and killed 4 people and ruined numerous businesses like the insulation sector and animal exports. It seems that no matter what the last government did they couldn't do anything wrong but now we have a government that are trying to re-build the country and they can't do anything right. A bit one eyed I say. 

Bob
Bob from QLD commented:

Absolute rubbish, more propaganda from unions and the vandals in the Labor Party.....just another grab to punish employers and if you advocate for this type of garbage, remove me from your database.....money doesn't grow on trees you clowns, someone has to pay. Try advocating for a 30% cut in bureaucrats and public servants in State and Federal governments for a better outcome for all, private enterprise is the source for employment and provision of taxes. Bob Roberts......Gold Coast 

Joyce
Joyce from NSW commented:

An unhelpful Government has just put many people thousands of dollars behind when they retire. Besides the money contributed the interest should be considered also i.e. money earned by your super fund investing it. To those who believe super has not been cut, Waiting for a rise in contributions for 7 years is effectively a cut because of the loss of earnings. I want to see how much politicians put into super and are they going to wait until 2021? I think not. Anyway they won't be in power after 2016 let alone 2021. 

Comment Guidelines