Review TTR says Rice Warner

9 February 2016
| By Mike |
image
image
expand image

The Federal Government has been told it should consider changing the Transition To Retirement (TTR) pension arrangements introduced by former Federal Liberal Treasurer, Peter Costello, because they unduly favour high income earners.

The call has been made by leading actuarial consultancy, Rice Warner, in a pre-Budget submission which suggests that the TTR arrangements need to be addressed, even though they were originally intended to help middle-come Australian catch up their superannuation later in their working lives.

Elsewhere in its pre-Budget submission, Rice Warner also suggests imposing a lifetime cap on non-concessional contributions of $500,000 which points out would be a considerable reduction from the current allowance of $180,000 a year.

As well, the actuarial consultancy argues for a reduction in the current level of minimum withdrawal values by 25 per cent to 50 per cent to allow members to defer drawdowns during periods of market downturns.

It said deferral of withdrawals would assist the retirement benefit to last for a longer period during retirement.

The pre-Budget submission also calls for a change to the tax rate payable on the death of a pensioner (without dependants) to be a flat 15 per cent plus Medicare giving 17 per cent in total, arguing that this would eliminate re-contribution strategies which simply avoid tax.

The submission also suggests that, as part of a broader tax package, the Government could consider having a uniform tax rate on the earnings of accumulation and pension accounts with a rate of about 10.5 per cent providing revenue neutrality.

The submission said Rice Warner was recommending a rate of 12 per cent which would help workers to grow their benefits faster from a lower tax rate than the current 15 per cent.

Read more about:

AUTHOR

Submitted by Kevin Williamson on Tue, 02/09/2016 - 12:25

Why should assets backing an income stream be taxed on their earnings (at 10.5% per the article above)?

A person with a $200,000 super balance getting a 5% return would end up paying $1,050 tax on their super. Do we really want to encourage them to cash-in their super and put it in the bank where their earnings would fall within the tax-exempt threshold?

Recommended for you

sub-bgsidebar subscription

Never miss the latest developments in Super Review! Anytime, Anywhere!

Grant Banner

From my perspective, 40- 50% of people are likely going to be deeply unhappy about how long they actually live. ...

1 year 3 months ago
Kevin Gorman

Super director remuneration ...

1 year 4 months ago
Anthony Asher

No doubt true, but most of it is still because over 45’s have been upgrading their houses with 30 year mortgages. Money ...

1 year 4 months ago

As market volatility persists, some super funds are pivoting defensively, while others are strategically positioning to capitalise on emerging opportunities....

4 hours 25 minutes ago

Advice licensee Centrepoint Alliance has entered an agreement to acquire the comprehensive financial advice book of the super fund’s subsidiary firm....

4 hours ago

A coalition of industry groups including the SMSF Association is demanding the government and the opposition “immediately and unequivocally rule out any move to tax unrea...

4 hours 40 minutes ago

TOP PERFORMING FUNDS

ACS FIXED INT - AUSTRALIA/GLOBAL BOND