Super tax concession - At whose cost?
Asfonz questions United Future's claims that proposed tax changes will leave "quite an additional amount of money in the pocket of taxpayers".
Wednesday, October 22nd 2003, 4:18PM
ASFONZ vice chairman, Jill Spooner cautions Copeland that such a change may not have the effect which he anticipates. Spooner states:
"During the process leading up to the inclusion of the current provisions in the Taxation Bill an option such as that being suggested by Copeland was considered. It was not pursued as it fails the KISS (kept it simple stupid) test.
"At that time ASFONZ suggested alternatives that would have met Copeland's objectives whilst passing the KISS test. These alternatives were dismissed.
The operation of an employer superannuation scheme imposes a layer of costs on employers. The success of involving employers in superannuation provision hinges on these costs being kept at an acceptable level. The proposal put forward by Copeland introduces considerable additional complexity the cost of which will in the best case scenario be borne by the employer, and at worst will manifest itself in employers not making contributions at all.
In an attempt to create a system with a focus on precise tax equity the government runs the risk of is enfranchising employers even further thereby denying working New Zealanders access to a valuable method of saving for retirement". Click here to United Future's press release United Future secures super tax concession
This is a press release from the Association of Superannuation Funds
| « Brash isn't proposing big super changes | United Future secures super tax concession » |
Special Offers
Commenting is closed
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
