Should asset wealthy retirees receive cash imputation credits when they pay little or no income tax?

This question is looming as a key issue for voters at the next federal election.  Abolition of such payments from the tax office  is a smart suggestion from public policy think tank, Melbourne’s Grattan Institute, originators of another Labor policy revenue proposal, the elimination of negative gearing, in combination with an increase in capital gains tax to 75% of the marginal tax rate.

For a Labor Party in office, calculations suggest that it would be a $59 billion treasure chest, to which can be added about $2 billion if negative gearing was abolished as well. This could fund many vote winning election promises for their time in office.

The counter-argument from the Coalition is that it would be a savage tax grab that would hurt thousands of low income retirees who may have income producing share-portfolios, and depend on their imputation credits to pay for items they could not otherwise afford.

The problem is that both arguments are valid. Retirees range from the very wealthy when they first access their superannuation, to those a decade or two on from retirement, who depend on the pension but still have some residual assets.

Both groups under current arrangements pay little or no tax. But how can you tax them fairly when there are such asset extremes? Recent retirees have much larger lump sums but they also have larger financial commitments for the future to meet.

It seems to me that the fairest solution is to tax retirees on their drawdowns, rather than raiding their capital, the source of future income. This would ensure fairness, and discourage excessive expenditure.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



Categories: National issues, Superannuation

Tags: ,

2 replies

  1. So you’re in favour of taxing income when it is earned, and then taxing what little return is generated by that income when it is invested in long term assets ?

    • I am not in favour of taxing the income generated within a superannuation fund, or the abolition of cash imputation credits, as both measures limit growth of the lump sum. I think it would be fairer across the board to instead tax withdrawals from the fund, at a concessional rate. Long time retirees with small residual superannuation balances would then not be penalised by loss of the cash imputation credits

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: