News

NewsHold onto your wallets - it's the 2016 Budget & Election season!
Hold onto your wallets - it's the 2016 Budget & Election season!

Hold onto your wallets - it's the 2016 Budget & Election season!

Our world is going to become increasingly dominated, thanks to the impending federal Budget and election, by matters of retirement incomes and investments and how they affect older Australians.

The sums involved, both in spending and saving, and the demographic bubble which is the baby boomer generation (1945-1964) means change is inevitable and will produce winners and losers.

The Budget on May 3 and the election on July 2 will see superannuation concessions and tax breaks like negative gearing as targets for ‘reform’.

These changes to a greater or lesser extent can impact all age groups however it’s arguable anything to do with super and much of the use of negative gearing would tend to be relevant to those both older and better-off.

The confusion caused by the government’s on again/off again pronouncements around changes to the GST, negative gearing and even state’s income-tax powers have not helped their ratings.

So far as we know how might these changes impact on those both richer and poorer aged more than  50 and is there anything we can do about it?

The Budget

While the Treasurer Scott Morrison has said the Budget will focus on spending cuts and not tax increases there’s  potential for tax concession reductions especially around super.

The figures may seem fiddly but in essence the ability for the better-off to put larger sums away in the tax shelter provided by super are set to be whittled down.

The target will be on those under 60 in the so-called 'accumulation phase', that’s to say before you start withdrawing your super, and the advice from reliable financial planners is, if you can, to make top up contributions sooner rather than later.

And if front page reports in Wednesday's Sydney Morning Herald are to be believed the Liberals intend to tighten up on  higher-income superannuation concessions even more than Labor had planned.

The already-controversial Shorten plan was to reduce the threshold for taxing contributions more heavily from $300,000 to $250,000. Now it seems Treasurer Morrison intends to announce on Budget night it will fall to $180,000.

While this will net an extra $2 billion annually, instead of Labor's now seemingly modest $500 million according to the Herald, another quarter of a million Australians will find their super contributions taxed more heavily.

The election

The government pushed negative gearing ‘off the table’ earlier in the year but it looms large in the federal poll with various predictions about the possible effects on house prices and rent increases.

Labour has nailed its flag to the mast of cigarettes with sharp increases to tobacco excise to help fund promises around health, education and spending on job creation.

More controversial are proposed changes to superannuation and capital gains tax concessions and a wide-scale scrapping of negative gearing -- a policy which allows investors to write-off costs associated with their investment against tax.

The plan, if elected, is to scrap negative gearing for existing properties made after July 1, 2017 and maintain the practice only for new homes.

Any properties bought before that date would be ‘grandfathered’ which means they could continue to be negatively geared.

Likewise Labor says it will cut from 50% to 25% the capital gains discount for assets held longer than 12 months from the same date.

What next?

More details about the budget, in the form of leaks before the big night, and the election in terms of policy announcements, will be coming thick and fast.

We’ll aim to keep you posted on how your interests might be affected and we'll stand up for those over-50 where there’s a common interest.

In the meantime, take a minute to fill in the poll on your FiftyUp Club dashboard and let us know what MOST worries you about the 2016 Budget and Election.

 

FiftyUp Club Pty Ltd (ACN 166 905 175) is a Corporate Authorised Representative (AR number 465649) of One Big Switch Pty Ltd (ACN 150 963 474) who holds its own Australian Financial Services License (AFSL 455982) and can provide you with factual information and general advice only. If in doubt about your personal situation or needs you should seek personal financial advice.

Originally posted on .

Join the conversation

FiftyUp Club
Hold onto your wallets - it's the 2016 Budget & Election season!

Share your views with other members. 

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

Just wish they would go after the Company's who are paying minimal tax or no tax rather than targeting 'baby boomers' (the easy targets). 

Victoria
Victoria from NSW commented:

Why is the govt. targeting the older Australians and retired folk , when the big corporations are not paying their fair share of tax. I read that 58 millionaires were paying NO tax at all...that's a disgrace when the average worker is paying heaps and has no choice as the money is taken from his pay before he even gets it. It's time any government was fairer about the way they collect revenue. Older Australians have paid tax and pensions for previous generations and now it's their turn to be paid for, the Govt. can't afford it....not good enough! 

Someone
Someone from VIC commented:

Sorry about the repeat post folks, some navigating glitch. Cheers 

Someone
Someone from VIC commented:

who anymore feels comfortable about putting money into super, particularly younger people. They may not get to access their money for 30 or 40 years, and see how the great super honey pot has been fiddled with in just the past couple of years. And the proposal to reduce the cap on concessional contributions to something like $20,000 per year is risible. After 30 years the super has accumulated $600,000 after which time the purchasing power is maybe only half that courtesy of inflation. The capital is expected to grow through investments. How much is the really tricky question. Given the volatility of the share market, older superannuants are advised to stay safely in cash deposits. Term deposits are now below the official RBA 2% yielding $12,000 on $600k which is hardly a living wage even now. Which completely negates the original intention that super would support one in retirement. If the contributions were paid by the employees and not compulsorily by the employer I rather think most sensible people would run a mile. While all the time the pollies look after themselves very well indeed, for example chopper Bronnie departing Parliament with a $250,000 life time pension to say nothing of the infamous gold travel card. Finally the now idea of additional tax on contributions for people earning over $180,000 is also highly inequitable. Typical wage earners in their 30's, several small children to raise, house loans to pay, "voluntarily" school charges to pay, and all the rest of the unavoidable necessities. And without a health card every visit to the clinic is around $80 of which about $37 comes back from medicare. .And consider what a gross $180,000 actually means It means a tax billing of $54,547, leaving a net $125, 453 to cover all the above mentioned. Oh, and I forgot to knock off the 2% medicare levy and the 2% budget repair levy as well. Hardly bloated plutocrats I would suggest. 

Someone
Someone from VIC commented:

who anymore feels comfortable about putting money into super, particularly younger people. They may not get to access their money for 30 or 40 years, and see how the great super honey pot has been fiddled with in just the past couple of years. And the proposal to reduce the cap on concessional contributions to something like $20,000 per year is risible. After 30 years the super has accumulated $600,000 after which time the purchasing power is maybe only half that courtesy of inflation. The capital is expected to grow through investments. How much is the really tricky question. Given the volatility of the share market, older superannuants are advised to stay safely in cash deposits. Term deposits are now below the official RBA 2% yielding $12,000 on $600k which is hardly a living wage even now. Which completely negates the original intention that super would support one in retirement. If the contributions were paid by the employees and not compulsorily by the employer I rather think most sensible people would run a mile. While all the time the pollies look after themselves very well indeed, for example chopper Bronnie departing Parliament with a $250,000 life time pension to say nothing of the infamous gold travel card. Finally the now idea of additional tax on contributions for people earning over $180,000 is also highly inequitable. Typical wage earners in their 30's, several small children to raise, house loans to pay, "voluntarily" school charges to pay, and all the rest of the unavoidable necessities. And without a health card every visit to the clinic is around $80 of which about $37 comes back from medicare. .And consider what a gross $180,000 actually means It means a tax billing of $54,547, leaving a net $125, 453 to cover all the above mentioned. Oh, and I forgot to knock off the 2% medicare levy and the 2% budget repair levy as well. Hardly bloated plutocrats I would suggest. 

Greg
Greg from QLD commented:

Greg from Qld Anonymous (if John is anonymous) and those before him really thought anbout it instead of jumping on the lnp bandwagon they would know that almost every government runs on debt, just like us when we use credit cards. We can't afford any government, they are in politics to feather their own nest. Take a look at superannuation for pollies, public servants and the rest. 

Victoria
Victoria from NSW commented:

wake up anonymous from NSW...the superannuation contributions paid by bosses is in lieu of the workers pay rises..so they are in fact contributing their own money for their own retirement . The real issue is the goal posts shouldn't be kept changing to suit the Govt of the day , but once put in place should remain there and any changes made should not be retrospective. If asked, I would definitely recommend NOT paying into superannuation , as the rules keep changing and the benefits keep decreasing ... 

Someone
Someone from NSW commented:

Why on Earth isn't it compulsory for all workers to contribute to their own superannuation each pay day? My husband was a state employee and had to do so, when we could really have done with that extra money every week, we did it because we had to and still managed. Quite honestly it's not the boss's place to solely pay for your retirement. When everyone says there is never enough to live on from super later in life, maybe this would really help. 

Sharyn
Sharyn from NSW commented:

Many people DO NOT have the option of contributing to their superannuation on a regular basis, especially if it involves salary sacrifice. My partner also worked for NSW State Govt and he was not allowed to salary sacrifice into Super because he wasn't high enough up the ladder. 

Annette
Annette from NSW commented:

Compulsory superannuation payments are 9.5% of a person's salary. Workers are paying it. The employer simply makes the transaction. 

Arthur
Arthur from NSW commented:

I totally agree with Robert & Dennis. If politicians were subject to the same conditions on their superannuation & retirement as every day citizens then they might think differently.But I don't hold out any hope of that' after all they will make certain that their perks are not reduced in any way.All political parties may be at odds over some things but they are 100% united when it comes to their remuneration. The current Liberal Govt. has many flaws but I shudder to think what Labor will do if they get back in charge.There is an old saying " A Leopard doesn't change its spots" & previous Labor Governments have shown just how completely inept they are. After all, one of their shadow ministers berated the Governor General in Parliament a few days ago & this same person, when in Government, wanted to censure any media comments critical of the Government. In other words control all the media as done in totalitarian countries. Many of the previous Rudd/Gillard Government members are still there & their way of thinking has not changed. The people should think long and hard as the go to the poling booth. They will not get what they think they wish for. but rather what a bunch "politicians " decide, it is what "they" wan't. 

Gillian
Gillian from QLD commented:

Following Labor's plan of only allowing negative gearing on new properties will surely lead to further urban spread, requiring substantially more expensive infrastructure and reducing further, the natural habitat for our already struggling native species. Dumb and dumber! 

Comment Guidelines