Robert Gottliebsen (“Gotti”) has taken a day off from doing Highrise Harry’s bidding and has instead launched an attack on the Turnbull Government’s so-called “retrospective” caps on superannuation, which he claims could cost the Coalition the election. From The Australian:
Financial planners around the country are now discovering that large portions of their client base are being affected [by the Coalition’s caps] and the Australian Taxation Office is being besieged with calls from people wanting to know how much tax-paid funding they contributed back to 2007.
The Institute of Public Affairs says that is there is no way only 4 per cent of the population is affected…
Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison did what every Australian detests — they introduced what was clearly retrospective legislation on superannuation…
Then the government made their position worse by claiming it was not retrospective. Try telling that to besieged tax office officials and financial planners who are going back to old records. It was bad legislation and Malcolm Turnbull annoyed a lot of people by still claiming in the TV debate that it was not retrospective…
All that’s required is to take out the retrospectivity and start selling the fact that the $1.6m cap is more generous than the ALP’s plan.
Earth to Gotti: ABC Fact Check has already conducted an extensive examination of your “restrospective” claim and found that it is false. If what you are saying was true, then virtually every change to the tax/welfare system could also be deemed “retrospective”.
Funny, I also don’t remember you crying “retrospectivity” when Peter Costello first relaxed the superannuation rules and applied them to pre-existing balances. Why is it that people like you only complain about retrospectivity when a ruling is not in your favour and ignore it otherwise?
May I also remind you that the Coalition’s superannuation reforms are projected to save the Budget some $2.9 billion over four years, in addition to funding the low income superannuation tax offset, which means those earning less than $37,000 would not have to pay more tax on their super than they do on their income.
Thus, the Coalition’s policy is not only a sound policy from a public finances perspective, but is also equitable as it would help those people most at risk of becoming dependent on the Aged Pension in their retirement.
What you seem to be forgetting in all of this is that the initial purpose of superannuation was to sponsor saving for retirement, not to encourage wealth accumulation and estate planning at the expense of the Budget.
That wealthy Coalition supporters like you can decry the Coalition’s reforms because it would make you a little ‘less rich’ beggars belief. To you, ending the age of entitlement seems only to matter when it applies to somebody else – most notably the poor and younger generations. As soon as you lot are asked to share the Budget burden, and unwind what is clearly a rort, you squeal like stuffed pigs.
Besides, most wealthy superannuation balances would still remain tax-free under the Coalitions reforms, thanks to the wonders of Australia’s dividend imputation system, as explained by accountant Jonathan Philpot a few weeks back.
Moreover, it’s not like those of you affected would be required to pay much extra tax – just a few thousand dollars on more than $100,000 of income – which compares very favourably to those of us actually required to work for a living.
Pull your head in Gotti. Your constant rent-seeking is growing tiresome.
