The Federal Treasurer, Scott Morrison, has rejected suggestions that targeting the superannuation tax concessions enjoyed by upper income earners will necessarily prompt them to shift their investment focus to the property market.
Seeking to explain the Government's Budget changes in a series of interviews, Morrison acknowledged, however, that upper income earners would undoubtedly move to reduce their exposure to the higher tax regime.
The Treasurer said that those impacted by the superannuation tax changes could switch their money back into accumulation or they could invest it wherever they chose.
However, Morrison suggested that high income earners affected by the Budget changes might choose to invest their money in some of the tax-advantaged business opportunities announced in the Budget rather than necessarily in property.
Discussing the status of the superannuation changes, Morrison said, "Now it's your money so you can go and put it where you want. You can transfer it back into what's called the accumulation account in superannuation, where you pay 15 per cent tax on the earnings or you can go and spend it anywhere else you like — I mean it's your money".
"So no one's taking the money off them, it's theirs, they've earned it, good for them, and I'm thrilled that they've done so well for themselves. But that doesn't mean once you've got over $1.6 million that the taxpayer's going to give you a tax free saving."
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.