Superannuation levels - I had thought that was only meant to be a catch up provision for a limited time under Howard. I don't recall how long was intended.redandblack wrote:Batpad, I'm talking about the provisions of the Taxation Act that allowed people to claim deductions and/or get low tax income relating to superannuation contributions of $100,000 a year or more.
I don't know many low income earners who can afford that.
I could also refer to many other similar sections of superannuation taxation law.
As for inflated executive salaries, I have no problem with executives being paid fairly for their work if they do a good job. I do have a problem with obscenely inflated bonuses and salary increases when they don't.
It is taking money from shareholders. For example, Rupert Murdoch got a salary of about $38 million last year and his company performed shockingly.
Qantas haven't paid a dividend for years. The shareholders vote an increase because they're dominated by the large institutional funds, who just look after each other.
My understanding was that the theory was that the baby-boomers didn't have enough Superannuation because of the unfavourable arrangements earlier in their lives in the Hawke/Keating era and the catch up would make them less dependent on pensions the nation couldn't afford. (We've discussed before the advice I had to forget Superannaution by two accountancy firms during that era.)
Obscene Salaries and bonuses - I agree totally, and add they are often still obscene even when they do do a good job.
