Register For Our Mailing List

Register to receive our free weekly newsletter including editorials.

Home / 339

Welcome to Firstlinks Edition 339

  •   8 January 2020
  • 3
  •      
  •   

In this new decade, Australia is expected to add another four million to its population, as it did in the previous decade. We have the fastest-growing population in the developed world (1.5% in the year to June 2019), which is one reason for nearly 30 years of economic growth. More people means more stuff. It's driven by net overseas migration of about 250,000 a year, and when most live in Sydney and Melbourne, the prosperity comes at a cost in transport, crowding and property prices. Natural increases are 0.5% of the population.

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, June 2019

An even bigger impact this decade will come from the ageing Baby Boomers, the youngest of which is already 55 (and the oldest is 73!). By 2030, most Boomers will have transitioned into retirement. Not only will this cause a major workforce (and tax payment) exodus, it signals greater drawdowns on pensions and health, and will put further pressure on policy change. For example, while the Labor franking policy is buried for now, the ATO recently advised that over one-third of company tax is returned to shareholders as franking credits.

This week's new articles start with a food theme, fitting after the long festive season. For investors looking for a more familiar way to think about an investment portfolio, we compare it to choosing foods in a diet. Christine Benz continues the idea with an 'investment pyramid', defining where you should spend most of your time and energy for the best results.

Amid these terrible fires comes a warning for all from Chloe Lucas, Christine Eriksen and David Bowman on the consequences of underinsuring our homes. They quote a common mistake in how we guess the insurance amount we need:

"I think we had about $550,000 on the house and the contents was maybe $120,000. You think sure, yeah, I can rebuild my life with that much money. But nowhere near. Not even close. We wound up with a $700,000 mortgage at the end of rebuilding."

Then Hugh Dive looks back over the last decade of ASX company performance and identifies the factors driving winners and losers.

We continue the raging debate about fees paid to advisers on new listed investment funds and the implications for investors, while Paul Heath argues the incentive fees are incompatible with impartial advice.

And finally, a reminder to check our free ebook based on wide-ranging interviews conducted with many leading global and local investment experts.  

 

Graham Hand, Managing Editor

For a PDF version of this week’s newsletter articles, click here.

 

3 Comments
David van Schaardenburg
January 13, 2020

Need to be a bit more careful about your statistics – presuming New Zealand is in fact part of the developed world – NZ’s population growth rate in the year to June 2019 was 1.7%... a bit higher than Australia…with all the resultant similar positive and negative impacts with most staying In Auckland.

Michael
January 11, 2020

Fast growing population but:
1. insufficient water to sustain it. Oh yes we can build 20 x desalination plants around the country.......the stupidity which passes for planning as big business gets its wish for a bigger market!
2. worsening climate change and more greenhouse gasses, so worsening fire seasons and other catastrophes to come moving forward.
3. cost of upgrading and replacing infrastructure. Where do you ever see this well published by the right wing Press doing the bidding of its big business contributors.
4. a multicultural society which may have worked in the past but which will result in a civil war. 
The planet does not need and cannot sustain the population we already have. Why more? To satisfy greedy big business wanting more customers? Is that any valid reason the destroy what we all hold precious? Apparently so.

Jim N
January 08, 2020

One of the great things that FirstLinks does is to educate and inform people.

However I wish to highlight some unfortunate choice of language which has the potential to misinform and it is something that arose in several of my discussions/debates on the franking credit issue last year.

‘An even bigger impact this decade will come from the ageing Baby Boomers, the youngest of which is already 55 (and the oldest is 73!). By 2030, most Boomers will have transitioned into retirement. Not only will this cause a major workforce (and tax payment) exodus, it signals greater drawdowns on pensions and health, and will put further pressure on policy change. For example, while the Labor franking policy is buried for now, the ATO recently advised that over one-third of company tax is returned to shareholders as franking credits.’

But ALL company tax was collected from ASX companies. There was no leakage back to some shareholders. This is a very important point.

All taxpayers are required to pay tax in accordance with their individual income circumstances. Taxpayers include those who are still in the workforce and many who are not.

Some taxpayers (retired or otherwise) own shares in public companies and qualify for franking credits to avoid paying tax twice on the same profit/earnings. This was bipartisan policy – probably because it was fair.

By presenting this statistic in a piece on retirees a reader might also form the view that retirees are the sole beneficiaries of franking credits which we both know is not the case.

Perhaps a more accurate final sentence of your paragraph might have been:

The ATO has recently advised that the aggregate value of franking credits available to taxpayers (retired or otherwise) is equivalent to around 30% of the aggregate annual amount of company tax.

The broad thrust of your piece inter alia is the need for reform in the area of retirement incomes policy. Agree 100%.

I think we should revisit the mistaken policy change of 2007 which relieved retirees of paying income tax on pension income. We heard no complaint at the time from those on defined pensions (many in excess of $100K) who suddenly had a tax windfall which had not been planned or anticipated.

While reversing this will take some political courage, it seems fairer that those retirees earning pensions of (say) $75 K or more pa (however sourced) should be obliged to pay a special (low-say 5%) rate of income tax on each dollar earned in excess of this amount.

Modelling would determine the appropriate threshold and tax rate. There might be some grumbling but at least these people have the capacity to pay and it is not the 30% slug on a much smaller and often lesser paid retiree population that was taken to the election by the ALP.

Keep up the good work,

 

Leave a Comment:

banner

Most viewed in recent weeks

The case for the $3 million super tax

The Government's proposed tax has copped a lot of flack though I think it's a reasonable approach to improve the long-term sustainability of superannuation and the retirement income system. Here’s why.

7 examples of how the new super tax will be calculated

You've no doubt heard about Division 296. These case studies show what people at various levels above the $3 million threshold might need to pay the ATO, with examples ranging from under $500 to more than $35,000.

The revolt against Baby Boomer wealth

The $3m super tax could be put down to the Government needing money and the wealthy being easy targets. It’s deeper than that though and this looks at the factors behind the policy and why more taxes on the wealthy are coming.

Meg on SMSFs: Withdrawing assets ahead of the $3m super tax

The super tax has caused an almighty scuffle, but for SMSFs impacted by the proposed tax, a big question remains: what should they do now? Here are ideas for those wanting to withdraw money from their SMSF.

The super tax and the defined benefits scandal

Australia's superannuation inequities date back to poor decisions made by Parliament two decades ago. If super for the wealthy needs resetting, so too does the defined benefits schemes for our public servants.

Are franking credits hurting Australia’s economy?

Business investment and per capita GDP have languished over the past decade and the Labor Government is conducting inquiries to find out why. Franking credits should be part of the debate about our stalling economy.

Latest Updates

Superannuation

Here's what should replace the $3 million super tax

With Div. 296 looming, is there a smarter way to tax superannuation? This proposes a fairer, income-linked alternative that respects compounding, ensures predictability, and avoids taxing unrealised capital gains. 

Superannuation

Less than 1% of wealthy families will struggle to pay super tax: study

An ANU study has found that families with at least one super balance over $3 million have average wealth exceeding $19 million - suggesting most are well placed to absorb taxes on unrealised capital gains.   

Superannuation

Are SMSFs getting too much of a free ride?

SMSFs have managed to match, or even outperform, larger super funds despite adopting more conservative investment strategies. This looks at how they've done it - and the potential policy implications.  

Property

A developer's take on Australia's housing issues

Stockland’s development chief discusses supply constraints, government initiatives and the impact of Japanese-owned homebuilders on the industry. He also talks of green shoots in a troubled property market.

Economy

Lessons from 100 years of growing US debt

As the US debt ceiling looms, the usual warnings about a potential crash in bond and equity markets have started to appear. Investors can take confidence from history but should keep an eye on two main indicators.

Investment strategies

Investors might be paying too much for familiarity

US mega-cap tech stocks have dominated recent returns - but is familiarity distorting judgement? Like the Monty Hall problem, investing success often comes from switching when it feels hardest to do so.

Latest from Morningstar

A winning investment strategy sitting right under your nose

How does a strategy built around systematically buying-and-holding a basket of the market's biggest losers perform? It turns out pretty well, so why don't more investors do it?

Sponsors

Alliances

© 2025 Morningstar, Inc. All rights reserved.

Disclaimer
The data, research and opinions provided here are for information purposes; are not an offer to buy or sell a security; and are not warranted to be correct, complete or accurate. Morningstar, its affiliates, and third-party content providers are not responsible for any investment decisions, damages or losses resulting from, or related to, the data and analyses or their use. To the extent any content is general advice, it has been prepared for clients of Morningstar Australasia Pty Ltd (ABN: 95 090 665 544, AFSL: 240892), without reference to your financial objectives, situation or needs. For more information refer to our Financial Services Guide. You should consider the advice in light of these matters and if applicable, the relevant Product Disclosure Statement before making any decision to invest. Past performance does not necessarily indicate a financial product’s future performance. To obtain advice tailored to your situation, contact a professional financial adviser. Articles are current as at date of publication.
This website contains information and opinions provided by third parties. Inclusion of this information does not necessarily represent Morningstar’s positions, strategies or opinions and should not be considered an endorsement by Morningstar.