InvestSMART

Super industry warns on cutting concessions

Tax breaks for superannuation are in jeopardy, as the government considers cutting lucrative concessions for higher-income earners to help return the budget to surplus.
By · 21 Apr 2012
By ·
21 Apr 2012
comments Comments
Tax breaks for superannuation are in jeopardy, as the government considers cutting lucrative concessions for higher-income earners to help return the budget to surplus.

TAX breaks for superannuation are in jeopardy, as the government considers cutting lucrative concessions for higher-income earners to help return the budget to surplus.

Super industry groups yesterday warned the government against reducing concessions for super contributions, which are forecast to cost the budget $30 billion this financial year, after it was reported they were on the chopping block.

Tax breaks for super are among the most expensive tax concessions, alongside negative gearing and the exemption of owner-occupied housing from capital gains tax.

The concessions allow high-income earners to pay 15 per cent tax on super contributions, rather than the top marginal rate of 45 per cent.

Critics say the concessions disproportionately favour high-income earners and do little to boost national savings. But the superannuation lobby yesterday argued the concessions helped ease the pressure on future budgets by encouraging people to save for their retirement. In a rare moment of agreement between the rival parts of the super industry, both the retail funds owned by the big banks and the union-associated not-for-profit funds slammed the possible cuts.

The chief executive of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia, Pauline Vamos, said the cuts would leave more older people reliant on the pension in years to come.

''Removing incentives to save more through superannuation will have a snowball effect which will mean reduced voluntary contributions, less money invested in the Australian economy through the diverse holdings of the super pool and a much bigger burden on the taxpayer down the track,'' Ms Vamos said.

Super groups have welcomed the government's policy of increasing employers' compulsory contributions from 9 per cent to 12 per cent of wages over the next seven years, but they said this could be undone by the proposed cuts.

The chief executive of the Financial Services Council, John Brogden, claimed cutting the concessions was against the interests of people with savings and would hurt future budgets. ''Any savings for the budget through reducing concessions in superannuation would be far outweighed by costs borne in future budgets,'' he said.

In contrast, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development this month recommended member countries' governments look at preferential tax treatment of retirement savings as a way to get their budgets in shape. There was ''scant evidence'' that tax perks increased the overall levels of saving, an OECD report said.

Google News
Follow us on Google News
Go to Google News, then click "Follow" button to add us.
Share this article and show your support
Free Membership
Free Membership
InvestSMART
InvestSMART
Keep on reading more articles from InvestSMART. See more articles
Join the conversation
Join the conversation...
There are comments posted so far. Join the conversation, please login or Sign up.

Frequently Asked Questions about this Article…

The government is reportedly considering cutting tax concessions that let higher-income earners pay 15% tax on superannuation contributions instead of the top marginal tax rate (up to 45%). These concessions are among the most costly tax breaks and are on the table as part of efforts to return the budget to surplus.

The article says the government is eyeing reductions in lucrative superannuation concessions because they are expensive — forecast to cost the budget about $30 billion this financial year — and trimming them is being considered as a way to help return the budget to surplus.

A wide range of super industry groups oppose the proposed cuts, including retail funds owned by big banks and union-associated not-for-profit funds. The Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA) and the Financial Services Council have publicly warned against reductions.

According to super industry groups cited in the article, cutting incentives to save through super could reduce voluntary contributions, leave more older people reliant on the pension, lead to less money invested in the Australian economy via super funds, and ultimately increase the future burden on taxpayers.

Industry leaders quoted in the article argue short-term savings from cutting concessions could be outweighed by higher future costs, such as greater pension reliance. The OECD, however, has recommended governments look at preferential tax treatment of retirement savings to improve budgets while noting there is 'scant evidence' that tax perks necessarily lift overall saving.

Super groups have welcomed the government’s policy to lift compulsory employer contributions from 9% to 12% of wages over the next seven years. The industry warns, though, that proposed cuts to contribution concessions could undermine the benefits of that increase.

Pauline Vamos, chief executive of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia (ASFA), warned cuts would leave more older people reliant on the pension. John Brogden, chief executive of the Financial Services Council, said any budget savings from reducing super concessions would likely be outweighed by future costs.

Everyday investors should follow government announcements on superannuation tax concessions, because any changes could affect the value of tax incentives for voluntary contributions and retirement planning. The article highlights the debate between saving short-term budget money and the potential long-term impacts on retirees and the economy.