# Australian Government to Tax Bank Saving



## Jillaroo (Aug 1, 2013)

_Haven't got all the details but it will be 0.05% and it will be on retirement funds also apparently, no doubt we will hear more on the news tonight, they are calling Krudd a bank Robber now i agree.   :what::aargh::wtf:_


----------



## SeaBreeze (Aug 1, 2013)

That's outrageous, and of course target the senior's retirement money too! :dollar:


----------



## Jillaroo (Aug 1, 2013)

_We all have to pay for their blunders, it's just not fair:aargh:_


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 1, 2013)

His voting bloc is the welfare addicted demographic, They won't mind, they don't have any savings,  so he's taxing ours to give them more sit-down money to keep them voting for him.  Elementary.


----------



## GDAD (Aug 1, 2013)

Here are some facts


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-02/government-to-release-economic-statement/4860390




"The Reserve Bank, APRA, ASIC have all suggested to us that this is a good idea. When they make a recommendation like this to government, government should listen."


----------



## Jillaroo (Aug 2, 2013)

_Thanks Gdad, I can see many people taking their money out and hiding it under the bed , it was Malcom Fraser who years ago suggested that , i'm sure correct me if i'm wrong._


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 2, 2013)

So you'll be voting for the Bank to run the joint then Gdad? 

 
Taking this to the Group might be a good idea.  Or not.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 2, 2013)

Jillaroo said:


> _Haven't got all the details but it will be 0.05% and it will be on retirement funds also apparently, no doubt we will hear more on the news tonight, they are calling Krudd a bank Robber now i agree.   :what::aargh::wtf:_



Wait for the details, Jillaroo.
I very much doubt that it will apply to superannuation funds. 
That sounds like propaganda to me.


----------



## maxHR (Aug 2, 2013)

.05% is 5 cents per $100 isn't it? But it is repeated every year isn't it?:doh::doh::doh:


----------



## GDAD (Aug 2, 2013)

Diwundrin said:


> So you'll be voting for the Bank to run the joint then Gdad?
> 
> 
> Taking this to the Group might be a good idea.  Or not.



NO: i JUST PUT UP THE FACTS THAT WAS FROM THE ABC NEWS..........DOESN'T MEAN I AGREE WITH THE PROPOSAL!


----------



## dbeyat45 (Aug 2, 2013)

Does the US Government tax bank savings in this way ??


----------



## That Guy (Aug 2, 2013)

"Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner 
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon." -- The Beatles


----------



## Archer (Aug 2, 2013)

B******s if they do..!!
As for saving it in case the banks have troubles, what  joke, it will go into general revenue to pay for they stuff ups...
These morons have been telling us for years to try and be as self funded as we can in our retirement, yet at every turn they rip a bit more off us...as I said...B******S!


----------



## Murphy (Aug 2, 2013)

> "The Reserve Bank, APRA, ASIC have all suggested to us that this is a good idea. When they make a recommendation like this to government, government should listen."




Hi folks Im new so I will jump right in and I think you will find thats government spin. 

The banks were taken by surprise with the TAX announcement after consulting with Treasurer Bowen for 3 weeks with further talks to come, they received a 1 page letter via the ABA from Bowen that it was a fait accompli -- so much for consultation.

Perhaps a read of -- http://www.bankers.asn.au/Media/Media-Releases/Media-Release-2013/Bank-savings-levy-will-impact-depositors-


----------



## Archer (Aug 2, 2013)

Time will tell...NEVER TRUST A POLITICIAN...:mad-new:


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 2, 2013)

Does anyone?

Of course it's spin, thanks for that link Murph, points up that what we're told now is not what we've been told during the term of this Government.

  They've swaggered and bragged about how wonderful it was that they 'saved' us through the GFC with 'their' smart bank savings guarantees... etc etc. Those laws were already in place, it wasn't 'their' brilliance that got us through.
  Now, when the coffers they inherited have been drained on wasteful largesse they suddenly tell us that the banks are vulnerable and need to be 'insured' with OUR savings??  I cry b******t!

Here's a quote from the article.  Nothing's changed in banking laws so if it was 'safe' then it's safe now!



> Mr Münchenberg said: “The Australian banking system is very safe.  This was proven during the global financial crisis, when our banking  sector coped well with the strains of that very difficult period, unlike  banks overseas which failed or had to be bailed out by their  Governments.”
> “In Australia, no depositor has suffered from a bank failure since the 1890s[SUP]2[/SUP] .”
> “Australia is also unusual compared with the rest of the world in  that it has a system of legislated depositor preference. This means that  depositors get preference over other unsecured creditors if an ADI  fails.”
> “In the event of insolvency, banks would have to burn through all  their profits and capital, and nearly half of their assets, before  deposits were even touched – that is a very unlikely scenario.”



This may be a piece of legislation you Americans might envy??


----------



## Murphy (Aug 3, 2013)

> NEVER TRUST A POLITICIAN



Unfortunately Archer it's politicians who govern the country, so we have little choice. 

The corruption in NSW which I think is only the tip of the iceberg, should get voters to take a much closer look.


----------



## maxHR (Aug 3, 2013)

If you look at what happened in the gfc, lending froze, fear does that, including interbank lending. Australian banks borrow from overseas, in a crisis that flow can stop dead thru no fault of the australian bank. Many businesses went to the wall simply because lines of credit dried up. In Australia withdrawals from some funds like mortgage trusts were frozen, simply because they don't keep the funds in cash, - they are locked up in buildings loans.
     This is why the government guaranteed bank deposits up to $250,000, - to instill confidence and stop a run on the banks as everyone rushes for the exits. Panic is contagious.
In the UK there was a run on a bank 'Northern Rock', the bank of england had to deliver truckloads of cash to restore confidence.
  The banking system has a thin veneer of stability, once that veneer is stripped away it is the law of the jungle


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 3, 2013)

But was it the major 'savings' banks, or the investment and merchant banks that were endangered Max?  I think the laws are more to protect the straight out public's savings.  The wheelers and dealers can make their own arrangements as to covering their risks.  It shouldn't fall to the Joe Public non investor to pay for the riskier players' insurance.  Banking is to a certain extent divided into those categories and 'savings' banks have a stricter set of rules governing what they can invest in.  As they should.

This move is nothing but a money grab from the savings of the 'struggling families' who the Labor Party have the gall to infer that they represent.

It's the very kind of thing they warn us that the 'Right' will do to us if we dare vote for them.  The hypocrasy is breathtaking!


----------



## Murphy (Aug 3, 2013)

With bank deposits paying almost nothing and set to plummet even further see-- http://www.news.com.au/business/com...its-will-hit-you/story-fnda1bsz-1226689769661 


I can see a run on the banks just before this new Rudd Bank Deposit Tax kicks in on Jan 2016 

We are deep in debt with policies like Gonski, the Disability Insurance Scheme, the NBN and another I cant recall not even being factored into the budget, which went from a forecast $18B defecit out to a whopping $33B three months later, for this year alone. 

Economic managers? Certainly not!


----------



## That Guy (Aug 4, 2013)




----------



## That Guy (Aug 4, 2013)

February 25, 1970, Isla Vista, California, USA


----------



## GDAD (Aug 4, 2013)

When you take out a loan from a bank, you are required to take out insurance against the loan.
Seeing what has happened whithin the last few years with banks going to the wall, why not make
them pay a levee or an insurance against the deposits... Does make sense..The banks should not
pass on the costs though!!....Just a Thought!


----------



## Murphy (Aug 4, 2013)

> Seeing what has happened whithin the last few years with banks going to the wall,



G'DAD, I'm trying to recall the banks that went bust in Australia in the last few years. 

It still comes back as a brand new tax, something this government is renown for


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 4, 2013)

The law relating to banking has built in sureties for covering those 'insurance' costs Gdad, this has nothing whatever to do with the banks.  They aren't proposing the tax.  

This is entirely down to the government trying to cover it's losses by creating yet another spurious 'futures' pool of funds which it spends well before the disaster it's supposed to protect us from ever eventuates.  The banks are just the excuse to *double tax us on savings*!  Which *is illegal* btw!

People hate the banks and can't see past their noses that they're just being used as a whipping boy because we didn't like 'em anyway.  Wake up.  It's not an 'insurance levee', it's a TAX.  

Your pension gets paid through a bank, wave goodbye to a few cents a week out of it, for now anyway.  The more hikes in the amount they so benificently bestow upon you, the more they'll grab back out of it.  Just sayin'.


----------



## Rainee (Aug 4, 2013)

Ok one question ? if this is the case, how can Australia boast to have a triple AAA economy? envy of the world the politicians say.!.
if that was the case they wouldn`t be doing this Tax.. they didn`t need it to get through the financial crisis... so whats change other than
the spending like there is no tomorrow.. it still has to be paid and by whom? guess its the taxpayers..


----------



## Murphy (Aug 5, 2013)

> envy of the world the politicians say.!.



More spin (or what they really are, LIES) and it will only get worse if Rudd wants to campaign on the economy. Now he is promising $450MILLION for after school hours care

The TRUE picture is, we have the third highest level of accumulated debt in the world behind Slovenia, and as I said earlier it blew out by an additional $15BILLION in 3 months to $33 BILLION which we will have to repay. Can you imagine the Interest on this debt?

I look at the handful of experienced Ministers who refused to serve under Rudd and quit, adding people like Graham Richardson, Warren Mundine and John Della Bosca etc who think little of him

As a side issue I can see why the Liberals dont want Treasury to cost their policies, because Treasury didn't even factor in the Fringe Benefits Tax in the latest budget


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 5, 2013)

As some economics guru pointed out the other day.  To say we're doing far better than other economies is extremely misleading.

'Other' economies are recovering.  We are not, ours is receding. 
Their economies are based on productivity, ours was based on passive revenue from the mining boom, which is imploding.
They're paying off their debts, we're simply borrowing more to keep up the lifestyle, and make the Govt's budget look better.

 Labor's economy figures are dangerous smoke and mirrors spin.


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 5, 2013)

Murphy said:
			
		

> The TRUE picture is, we have the third highest level of accumulated debt in the world behind Slovenia,



I need a credible reference before I can accept this statement, Murphy. Can you supply me with one?


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 5, 2013)

Diwundrin said:
			
		

> 'Other' economies are recovering.  We are not, ours is receding.


If you mean that our rate of growth is slowing I can accept your premise but if you mean that our economy is not growing or is shrinking I would argue that this is not so. We have had 21 years of continuous growth but not always at the same rate.


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 5, 2013)

Yes point taken, slowing.  What's receding is revenue!


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 5, 2013)

Yes. If booms lasted forever we wouldn't call them booms.


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 5, 2013)

And yet we,  or I should say Governments, use booms to brag about well they're managing the economy, and then when the bust comes they brag that we aren't as bad off as Greece and it's a 'global problem' and has nothing to do with their economic management.  What's the old saying? "everyone is success' father but failure is an orphan"...  or similar?


----------



## Warrigal (Aug 5, 2013)

Remember the OT story about Nebuchadnezzar's dream of the seven fat cows 
and the seven lean cows that ate the fat ones. 
It was an ancient lesson in economics. 

I don't know why we are still surprised.


----------



## MercyL (Aug 5, 2013)

SeaBreeze said:


> That's outrageous, and of course target the senior's retirement money too! :dollar:



This truly sucks, but Reagan's taxing our Social Security Retirement Funds is just as bad. Single people must pay taxes on their Social Security payments if they make over $25,000.00, and couples face the same taxes if making $32,000.00 or more. This means that most people will probably keep working until they die. 

Most people, single or not, will have to work to maintain the lifestyle they worked so hard to create. Maintaining that lifestyle will cost more than $25,000.00 for singles and over $32,000.00 for couples, annually. Most people will keep working, rather than give up the fruits of their labor.

Taxing savings at 0.05 works if, and only if, the targeted savings accounts pay decent interest rates. Otherwise you are better off cashing your paycheck and keeping it under your mattress. At least you'll know where it is and any thefts will be obvious!


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 5, 2013)

Our interests rates are dropping at an alarmingly steady rate, barely ahead of inflation really.  Not quite as low yet as I read they were in the US though. 

All the tweaking seems to be being done to help young people get a start in the housing market and make more jobs in the building sector but the seniors who have already worked a lifetime to accrue a nest egg are ultimately the ones now paying for other people's mortgages.  No one helped them out with theirs!


----------



## That Guy (Aug 5, 2013)

MercyL said:


> This truly sucks, but Reagan's taxing our Social Security Retirement Funds is just as bad. Single pepole must pay taxes on their Social Security payments if they make over $25,000.oo, and couples face the same taxes if making $32,000.00 or more. This means that most people will probably keep working until they die.
> 
> Most people, single or not, will have to work to maintain the lifestyle they worked so hard to create. Maintaining that lifestyle will cost more than $25,000.00 for singles and over $32,000.00 for couples, annually. Most people will keep working, rather than give up the fruits of their labor.
> 
> Taxing savings at 0.05 works if, and only if, the targeted savings accounts pay decent interest rates. Otherwise you are better off cashing your paycheck and keeping it under your mattress. At least you'll know where it is and any thefts will be obvious!



That's what's keeping me from retiring...


----------



## MercyL (Aug 5, 2013)

Diwundrin said:


> Our interests rates are dropping at an alarmingly steady rate, barely ahead of inflation really.  Not quite as low yet as I read they were in the US though.
> 
> All the tweaking seems to be being done to help young people get a start in the housing market and make more jobs in the building sector but the seniors who have already worked a lifetime to accrue a nest egg are ultimately the ones now paying for other people's mortgages.  No one helped them out with theirs!



As far as I can tell, US banks see no reason to pay more than 1% interest on savings accounts. I remember interest rates of 5% to 7%, and no fine print explaining all the fees used to steal our wages. 

Some US employers require their minimum wage earners obtain and maintain a debit card account for electronic payments. These employers also shun pay stubs and do not care about the fees these debit cards carry, levied on each transaction. In other words, you must pay the bank to pay your bills, assuming the employer has paid you fairly and you have not had to spend time tracking down errors and underpayments. 

Oh joy.


----------



## Murphy (Aug 5, 2013)

Warrigal said:


> I need a credible reference before I can accept this statement, Murphy. Can you supply me with one?



It was on The Drum and will try to find a link


----------



## Diwundrin (Aug 5, 2013)

They've just dropped the interest rates again!  2.something % now!  The one bright side is that I won't be making enough income to qualify to pay income tax at this rate so they can suck eggs.


----------



## dbeyat45 (Aug 6, 2013)

MercyL said:


> [ Snip ]
> Taxing savings at 0.05 works if, and only if, the targeted savings accounts pay decent interest rates. Otherwise you are better off cashing your paycheck and keeping it under your mattress. At least you'll know where it is and any thefts will be obvious!


Psst !  Mercyl, I know where you can buy a cheap mattress ...


----------

