[ad_1]
Leith van Onselen
The treacherous ACTU has supported Keiting's call to abolish Australian insurance guarantee (ie Compulsory penalization penalties) from 9.5% to 12%, arguing that it will provide workers with a decent retirement:
… today is the average salary for men for men of $ 112,000 and for women $ 68,000, and only 20% of current retirees are fully funded …
This is an inadequate level of retirement savings, which led to the Government of Rudd-Gillard pledging to allocate a compulsory pension guarantee from 9% to 12 years. It should come into force in July next year until Government Abbot switches on brakes, so we will not look great at 12 percent by 2025. For many it is too late.
An increase of 12 percent is far from a radical policy – when it was super-introduced for the first time under Paul Keating, its goal was to increase to 15 percent over time.
That plan was damaged under the rule of Howard, who left him at 9 percent.
See the template here? Every time we are on the verge of increasing super to the level that would give the Australians a dignity in retirement deserving, it is postponed and de-prioritized …
It's time for Australia to be more ambitious.
Our retirement system is dependent on most of the world, but it's far from perfect and it's designed to increase to 12 percent or more decades ago.
We need to fulfill the initial promise of oversight and ensure that it is truly universal and provide an adequate retirement.
Does the ACTU not realize that compulsory compensation paid by workers (not employers) through a lower salary for taking home (less available income), harmful implications for people on lower incomes?
Do not just take my word for it – that Henri Tak Reviev similar conclusions:
Although employers are required to pay contributions for insurance against payment, employees bear the cost of these contributions through lower wage growth. This means that an increase in employee retirement income is achieved by reducing their standard of living before retirement.
Why Henri Tak Reviev explicitly recommends that the guarantee for additional savings is kept at the current level, and does not increase to 12%, so it has not adversely affected those earning less revenue:
The retirement income report recommended that the pension insurance rate remains at the level of 9%. In making this recommendation, the review took into account the impact that the guarantee for extraordinary transactions has on earnings before retirement of low-income earnings.
Fair Vork Australia He also acknowledged that workers paid great, pointing out that the pay increase was either "lower than [they] otherwise it would be in the absence of an increase in the guarantee for additional assistance. "
And for anyone who still has doubts about who is paying for super, consider this interview with Bill Shorten for the year 2010 when he was the Minister of Financial Services and Superannuation in the former Labor Government:
NEIL MITCHELL:
Okay. When inflating increases from 9% to 12%, who pays? ..
BILL SHORTEN:
What is happening with inflation is that human pay is certainly increasing. Everywhere it grows, to a great extent. What will happen is that there will be an increase in salaries, increases to superannuation, as part of an increase in people's salaries … they get salary increases, some of which will probably go awesome …
NEIL MITCHELL:
Okay. So you say that the increase in penalties will be paid by absorbing money from salary increases.
BILL SHORTEN:
These are evidence …
NEIL MITCHELL:
So, just to make it clear, the deal will not pay the extra dollar, right?
BILL SHORTEN:
No, I do not see that the work will pay more in the future than would otherwise be the case if the changes in the case of penalties did not pass. However, what I recognize is that part of the increase in employees will increase the compulsory savings, which is a concession tax.
We also remember that the withdrawal of the guarantee fee would cost the federal budget an additional $ 2 billion a year. What more, the budgetary costs of mandatory supplementation actually exceed the savings in the federal budget – the point explicitly recognized by Henri Tak Reviev:
"The increase in the retirement guarantee could … could have a net cost for government revenues even over a longer period (ie, the loss of income tax revenues would not be completely replaced by increasing the collection of value added tax or reducing the cost of an old-age pension)."
The latest report of the Grattan Institute similarly concluded "Both short-term and long-term taxes on value added tax cost the budget more than they save in the payment of pensions":
Although the adequacy of pension savings for those earning lower income is indeed an important issue, this would best deal with lobbying the ACTU to achieve concessions for abandonment. In this way, these low-income workers can enjoy an increase in retirement savings without they also had a reduction in their pay for download.
But simply raising the release guarantee without identifying the basic problems will only increase the inequalities that have already been observed in the system, and highlight the pockets of the industry.
Given that ACTU has its fingers in the Super Pie industry, maybe that's his intention?
[email protected]
[ad_2]
Source link
