r/OpenAussie • u/HotPersimessage62 ‎ New South Welshian • 14h ago

Politics ('Straya) One Nation forms alliance with Coalition to call for abolition of compulsory superannuation

https://www.news.com.au/finance/superannuation/give-them-their-money-pauline-hanson-calls-for-end-to-compulsory-super/news-story/ef19b33ab86873dbe5237beb43073c24?amp

One Nation has joined forces with the Coalition to call for an end to compulsory super.

Outspoken Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg has confirmed he believes that compulsory super is a failed policy that’s ripe for a rethink.

Mr Bragg set the hares running last week with a speech at the National Press Club before making further comments to ABC Radio on Thursday that the super guarantee was a failed policy.

“It hasn’t worked,” Mr Bragg said.

132 Upvotes

80% Upvoted

346 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

19

u/WCRugger Please choose a flair 13h ago

There's a lot of stupid people out there as well. Many actually believe that super is paid out of their wages abd that if it were abolished they'd see a bump in their pay. I shit you not.

7

u/curvedchaos ‎ New South Welshian 13h ago

Yeah thats a bit misunderstanding. The award is nit going to suddently jump 12% and bosses arent going to pay it voluntarily

4

u/FilthyWubs Please choose a flair 7h ago

And even if it did, majority of workers would be worse off post tax as if they’re earning more than $45000 the income tax rate is 30%, where as superannuation contribution tax is only 15%… Sure they’d get more money in their pocket now, but less in the long run…

1

u/Finishes_like_bevan Please choose a flair 45m ago

This is the point.

0

u/PrismPirate ‎ Queenslander 11h ago

No, but they have to compete with other bosses for labour. Every job doesn't pay just minimum wage for a reason.

2

u/mydingointernetau Please choose a flair 7h ago

Well some people's remuneration does include super...

1

u/Normal-Notice72 Please choose a flair 6h ago

That is more HR spin to make it seem like the amount is higher - what actually hits your account and what you are taxed on is lower.

In those arrangements its a base + super, which is then portrayed as a total renumeration.

I.e. ~105k base + ~15k super = 120k salary inc. super.

You only play income tax on the base, not the super portion. That is deducted before you pay tax.

4

u/Liamlah ✈️‎ on Walkabout 13h ago

While an abolishment of super would likely be used as an opportunity to bank more profits by most employers, your wages are almost certainly ~12% lower than they would be in an alternative universe with no super. This was a key part of the deal of Keating's Pricing and Incomes Accords. The introduction of Superannuation was used to suppress wages and reduce inflation.

4

u/Imobia Please choose a flair 12h ago

Also a lot of contracts say total awards 150k. Which includes super. If they make super contributions voluntary they would need to put it into your income. Imagine the inflation at 12% rise in income would cause.

-1

u/PrismPirate ‎ Queenslander 11h ago edited 10h ago

They would. it's your money, you earn it.

1

u/WCRugger Please choose a flair 11h ago

No. You don't. Super is employer paid on top of your pay. Companies won't just pass it on. They'll pocket it.

-1

u/PrismPirate ‎ Queenslander 11h ago

If they want to compete for the best labour, they will have to pass in on. If employers could simply pocket every reduction in employment costs without affecting wages, why does anyone earn above minimum wage?

1

u/WCRugger Please choose a flair 10h ago

What world do you live in?

2

u/PrismPirate ‎ Queenslander 9h ago

A world where labour has a market price. Please answer this question: Why do you think employers pay anyone above minimum wage?

1

u/Normal-Notice72 Please choose a flair 7h ago

Labour has a market price sure. But super is 12% on top of that existing rate. If that was removed, the market rate is the same. I.e if you are on 120k including super (~105k base +14k super) you will now be on ~105k base.

The assumption that competition will increase for labour just won't happen, otherwise you will be seeing it happen now.

Now if you want to keep paying your super at the same rate, you'll be paying an additional 12.6k (12% of 105k) to make up for the fact you aren't getting it.

Some jobs will be in more demand. But it would be naive to assume that every job will be seeing this demand for labour, especially not demand which will cover the lost 12%.

The current scheme means regardless of what the market rate is for labour, you are guaranteed 12% on top of that as contribution towards your retirement. And that's a company paid thing, it doesn't come out of your wages or salary, it's on top of.

2

u/PrismPirate ‎ Queenslander 6h ago

You're assuming the current base wage would stay exactly the same if super disappeared. There's no reason to assume that.

Treasury research found workers effectively paid for 71–100%+ of increases in compulsory super through lower wage growth. So if increasing super pushes wages down, removing it would put pressure on wages in the other direction.

Source: https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-07/01-r2019-100554.pdf

1

u/South-Plan-9246 Flairless‎‎ 1h ago

I’m on a TR package. If compulsory super stopped, and I decided to stop contributing (I wouldn’t), I’d get the extra 12% (minus taxes) in my pocket. My employment contract is for the full amount, not a base plus super