The former chair of the Commonwealth Superannuation Schemes, Peter Reynolds, has called for the government to adopt an asset-based dividend method to enhance all retirement balances and government revenue.
In a submission to the Retirement Income Review, Reynolds said upfront tax on super was crippling retirement income.
“The upfront tax limits the potential of the super scheme by reducing the superannuation guarantee (SG) to 8% of ordinary time earnings before investment (e.g. a $10,000 SG is reduced to $8,500). This configuration of taxes reduces the return to individuals and government,” he said.
Reynolds said a more effective system would be an annual asset-based fee or dividend of 1.25% on the super pool of funds in accumulation mode.
“This approach redistributes the tax burden from the earlier years of accumulation to the latter years. In so doing, it enables greater wealth to be created for all participants with the greatest benefit flowing to low income earners and those with low balances,” he said.
“The dividend method would increase and stabilise government revenue with a predictable compound growth rate of 7% per annum for the next 15 years.”
Reynolds noted it would also simplify the super scheme with government revenue requiring only one calculation per annum on the mandated 30 June balance of each super account.
Source: Peter Reynolds
The figures are based on an estimated current tax revenue of $30 billion. A dividend of 1.25% from an asset base of $2.4 trillion (accumulation mode) would yield the same amount.
Jim Chalmers has defended changes to the Future Fund’s mandate, referring to himself as a “big supporter” of the sovereign wealth fund, amid fierce opposition from the Coalition, which has pledged to reverse any changes if it wins next year’s election.
In a new review of the country’s largest fund, a research house says it’s well placed to deliver attractive returns despite challenges.
Chant West analysis suggests super could be well placed to deliver a double-digit result by the end of the calendar year.
Specific valuation decisions made by the $88 billion fund at the beginning of the pandemic were “not adequate for the deteriorating market conditions”, according to the prudential regulator.
Pardon my ignorance; more information please. Is it a Fee or Dividend …… and, there is still only 100 cents in the dollar. Very confusing.