This was posted 4 months 18 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Related
  • expired

Receive up to $500 Superannuation Co-Contribution for Individuals (Under 71 YO) Earning Less than $58,445

3070
Receive up to $500 Superannuation Co-Contribution for Individuals (Under 71 YO) Earning Less than $58,445
Go to Deal
oziebee on 18/06/2024 - 22:20 ato.gov.au (2664 clicks)
Last edited 19/06/2024 - 02:57 by 1 other user

What is a super co-contribution

If you're a low or middle-income earner and make personal non-concessional (after-tax) contributions to your super fund, the government may also make a co-contribution up to a maximum of $500.

The government co-contribution you receive depends on your income and how much you contribute.

You don't need to apply for the super co-contribution. When you lodge your tax return, we will work out if you're eligible. If your super fund has your tax file number (TFN), we will pay it to your super account automatically.

The preservation rules applying to your current super entitlements also apply to the co-contribution.

Eligibility

To be eligible for the super co-contribution you must:

  • have made one or more personal non-concessional super contributions to your complying super fund during the financial year
  • pass the two income tests (income threshold and 10% eligible income tests)
  • be less than 71 years old at the end of the financial year
  • not hold a temporary visa at any time during the financial year (unless you're a New Zealand citizen or it was a prescribed visa under [subsection 20AA(2)] of the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999
  • have lodged your tax return for the relevant financial year
  • have a total superannuation balance less than the general transfer balance cap at the end of 30 June of the previous financial year
  • not have contributed more than your non-concessional contributions cap.

To receive the co-contribution, your total income must be less than the higher income threshold for that financial year.

Your total income

For the purpose of this test, your total income for the financial year is:

  • the total of your
    • assessable income
    • reportable fringe benefits total
    • reportable employer super contributions reduced (but not below zero) by any excess concessional contributions 
  • minus your 
    • assessable first home super saver released amount (if any)
    • allowable business deductions (relevant to businesses only).

I got confused with the complex rules for eligibility but more clear on the below post

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/2-weeks-left-for-aussies-t…

You can estimate how much you may receive as a co-contribution from the government using various calculators found online.

ATO

Financial Superannuation

Related Stores

Australian Taxation Office
Australian Taxation Office

closed Comments

  • Powershopz on 18/06/2024 - 22:32
    +128

    Anyone earning that low, really isn't going to have a spare $1K sitting around to throw in their super.

    • CyberMurning on 18/06/2024 - 22:37

      Yep. Especially now with buy now pay later thing, no way poor people can save money.

      • lorikeet on 18/06/2024 - 23:30
        +28

        As opposed to Super which is a pay now, buy more later scheme.

    • jv on 18/06/2024 - 22:37
      +114

      That's why the government does these things…

      They know that hardly anyone will take it up, but they can pretend they are helping low income families…

        • Daabido on 19/06/2024 - 06:26
          +23

          I let my Asian talk for himself. Don't you?

      • Littlejoe on 19/06/2024 - 01:01
        +1

        My friend puts the money into his son's account.

        • lordra on 19/06/2024 - 01:58
          +1

          How old is the son?

          Just wondering how soon I can start.

          • paloverde88 on 19/06/2024 - 03:55
            +7

            @lordra: 39

          • IXXI on 19/06/2024 - 08:04
            +1

            @lordra: Not all super companies will accept children but some do. Australian Super is one that does allow children. My 3yo, 8yo and 10yo all have super accounts with them.

            • b2dz on 19/06/2024 - 09:46

              @IXXI: That's super interesting. Thank you I didn't realise this. Can you make before-tax contributions to it just like you could your own account?

              • b2dz on 19/06/2024 - 09:51
                +2

                @b2dz: Answering my own question - looks like it's a no.

                https://insightaccounting.com.au/2023/06/can-you-contribute-…

                No tax deduction available for child contributions

                Although you can contribute to a child’s superannuation account, you won’t be entitled to receive a personal tax deduction or offset from the contribution. This is because child contributions are non-concessional contributions, which are often referred to as after-tax contributions because they are made from after-tax money.

                The only exception where you may be entitled to a personal tax deduction is where the child is employed in a family-owned business, and you are the child’s employer.

                Note – child contributions do not include contributions you make as a child’s employer. These contributions are reported as employer contributions and count towards the child’s concessional contributions cap instead.

              • IXXI on 19/06/2024 - 09:53
                +1

                @b2dz: No, but your children can assuming they earn an income (other than investment income). I use it as a method to save for their first home deposit under the FHSS scheme. The money gets a good rate of return and because its locked up in superanuation, they cant blow the lot on cocaine when they turn 18. They can only use it to buy a house. I drop $1k a year into each of their accounts, so by the time they are ready to buy a place they will have a healthy deposit and I wont really notice the little I've added each year.

                • b2dz on 19/06/2024 - 09:59

                  @IXXI: Got it, that's actually a nifty idea. I used the FHSS to buy my own house and found it clunky and cumbersome but saved a good few $K in doing it.

                  Reading the ATO site

                  You can withdraw up to $15,000 of your voluntary contributions from any one financial year, up to a total of $50,000 across multiple years, plus associated earnings.

                  Your idea works as long as you dont dump more than $15k in a year. The only thing i'd worry about is the low amount being eaten up by fees etc and not generating enough interest/earnings to increase.

                  • IXXI on 19/06/2024 - 10:10

                    @b2dz: Yeah, you do need to reach a bit of a critical mass to offset the fees. There is some protection in the early stages though.

                    From the APRA website:

                    "The fee cap requires RSE licensees to cap their administration and investment fees (including indirect costs) at 3 percent per annum for members that have a final balance of less than $6,000 for their MySuper or choice product in an income year."

                    My youngest daughter had $1500 in her account at the start of this FY and its now sitting at $1608 after fees. Thats 7.2% ROI over the year which isnt too bad.

                  • Mad Max on 19/06/2024 - 11:35

                    @b2dz: It is not only the superannuation fund's fees to make it less attractive.
                    If you put the money in it for the FHSS you are probably looking to buy soon. Therefore your investments in super should be allocated to cash or very low risk.
                    Let's say cash.
                    Super funds returns for cash has been lower than 4%. Even in a SMSF, best you can get for cash is 4.65%.
                    Whereas for individual accounts outside super you can get 5.5%.

                    • IXXI on 19/06/2024 - 13:30

                      @Mad Max: Absolutely, short term it may not be the best idea. Having said that, my 3yo daughter wont be buying a house any time soon so I can afford to have her in a higher risk/return option for a good while yet.

            • shockme79 on 19/06/2024 - 13:24

              @IXXI: I wasn't aware of this possibility… Thank you. Quick question, is there a maximum $ contrubution each account can receive in a FY? And secondly, are contributions taxed? (Even I contribute after-tax dollars?).

              • IXXI on 19/06/2024 - 13:27
                +2

                @shockme79: I'm no tax advisor, but I believe you can contribute up to $15k per FY and be able to retrieve that amount for your deposit, up to a total of $50k.

            • od810 on 19/06/2024 - 14:24

              @IXXI: I was looking to do the same thing for my kids. My idea is that i chuck a few grands in and let it compound over 60 years, they don't need to worry about retirement so much. I did my calculation is that with 10k contribution, they will have over 1m by retirement age at 7% net return.

              How did you open with Aus Super

              • IXXI on 19/06/2024 - 14:31
                +3

                @od810: I emailed them a while back. If I remember correctly, I had to get them a TFN first. This is the response I got:

                Thank you for your enquiry.

                There is no minimum age to open a super account.

                To create a superannuation account for someone under the age of 18, you will need to create a Personal Plan account.

                If you decide to create the account online, the minor will be the account holder. For you to gain access to the details, download and complete our Authority to access a minor member's account details form.

                If you sign or co-sign the manual application in our PDS, you will be the account holder until the child turns 18.

                To join, complete the online form at australiansuper.com/Join or the manual application can be found in our Personal Plan PDS.

                Please be aware that for us to accept personal contributions, we’re required to have a tax file number for the minor.

                Over 18 account

                The type of account you require would depend on what stage you’re in.

                A standard accumulation account is used for accepting contributions, either from an employer or voluntarily from you.

                If you’d like to set up an accumulation account, please complete the online form at australiansuper.com/Join

                Returning documents

                To return documents and information to us, please visit our website at australiansuper.com/Email

                Choose Non-Member enquiry type (up the top) then select the following options:

                · Reason for enquiry: Join AustralianSuper
                · Enquiry Topic: Open a Super account

                Select YES to sending a form or file with the enquiry and move to the next option:

                · Select Form Type: AustralianSuper join form

                Browse for the document and select it or drag and drop it into the allocated space, read the Privacy Collection Statement and confirm your understanding then select SEND ENQUIRY.

                Please note: If you select ‘Other’ as the reason for enquiry, you won’t be given an option to upload documents.

                • od810 on 20/06/2024 - 10:32
                  +1

                  @IXXI: Thanks for this information. this is really helpful

            • lordra on 19/06/2024 - 21:23

              @IXXI: @IXXI
              does this mean you can put in $1000 and get the $500 from this deal?

              • IXXI on 20/06/2024 - 08:27
                +1

                @lordra: Only if your children are somehow employed and earning an income.

          • Littlejoe on 19/06/2024 - 22:41

            @lordra: His son's probably 25 now, he wasn't earning much while he was at uni.

            • lordra on 20/06/2024 - 00:19

              @Littlejoe: Ah right oh.

              I'm wondering if a child, say 3 years old, can claim for this.

              • lordra on 20/06/2024 - 08:49

                @lordra: I got my answer. No. Only if the child is employed and earning an income. Thanks.

        • tsk2 on 19/06/2024 - 06:25

          Yeah. I looked at this for the kids. The income test is the issue for the little ones. Family business is about the only way you could do it or pay from modeling. You’d want to keep good records too - I’d imagine the ATO would be looking some one to be made an example of.

          • flywire on 19/06/2024 - 07:47

            @tsk2:

            Family business is about the only way

            10% eligible income test could be an issue.

            Generally, income that is related to employment or business is eligible income – for example:

            • salary and wages
            • business income earned as a sole trader or in a partnership
            • director fees.

            Modelling work for babies??

            • od810 on 19/06/2024 - 14:21
              +1

              @flywire: They can be directors :D.

            • tsk2 on 19/06/2024 - 14:38

              @flywire: Yeah - someone signed up the kid a modeling baby …. used photos on a blog of theirs or something. Family business hiring is exempt from some age limits … apparently just got to be a safe environment.

              I honestly looked into it as a means of time in the market for them but it just felt way too dodgy and too much work.

              looks like you'd need to deposit 1000 to gain the full benefit https://ibb.co/NCqb6XF

              https://www.heffron.com.au/news/can-a-child-receive-a-govern… <——Quick summary. f

      • Brianqpr on 19/06/2024 - 07:41
        +6

        When I was doing financial advice, our multi million dollar clients always made sure their non working spouse/partner claimed it 🙄

        • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 19/06/2024 - 08:18
          +5

          Yep, the determination that drove them to get rich is just senseless greed for ever more money they don't need, at the expense of society.

          • 1st-Amendment on 19/06/2024 - 08:45
            -2

            @JohnHowardsEyebrows:

            is just senseless greed

            Why don't you give all you money to someone poorer than you? Is it the same 'senseless greed'?

            for ever more money they don't need

            Why do you think you get to decide what other people 'need'?

            at the expense of society.

            Aren't these the people who create society in the first place? Would you prefer the a determined entrepreneurial type have more money to build businesses and create products and employ people, or do you think that the government is better at spending their money?

            • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 19/06/2024 - 09:19
              +5

              @1st-Amendment: Glad to know I triggered you, champ.

              If someone has $10m, they're set for life. I get some enjoy the challenge of business regardless of money, but finding loopholes, tax dodges, politicians like Turnbull paying his wife to stay at her house in Canberra, it's all very parasitic.

              As for giving money to someone poorer than you, normal people pay taxes with the understanding they're paying forward the opportunities they were given. Sadly, there are plenty of bogans who benefit from society, then get all uppity when it comes time to pay their way.

              As for creating society, lol. Society was created by people creating institutions, fighting for minimum standards and rights for the many rather than the few. Though I appreciate a wannabe American libertarian doesn't understand civilisation.

              • Igaf on 19/06/2024 - 10:32
                +2

                @JohnHowardsEyebrows: Complex issue, nicely summed up, completely wasted on your target though.

                https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-06-17/millionaires-paid-no-…

                Good to see some philanthropy from the cashed up non-contributors, although almost anything can qualify as a "charity" these days thanks to our continuing lax definitions and auditing. Tax loopholes could be easily plugged (by limiting deductions for tax advice/assistance for example) but the conservatives and Labor have neither the inlication nor the guts to do anything.

            • Ryballs on 19/06/2024 - 09:41
              +3

              @1st-Amendment:

              Aren't these the people who create society in the first place?

              Society is shaped by countless factors and individuals, not just the wealthy. Being rich doesn't automatically make someone a societal contributor. Likewise there are many people who aren't rich who contribute a lot to society, like small business owners, volunteers and social workers.

            • Brianqpr on 19/06/2024 - 10:48
              +4

              @1st-Amendment: "create society", oh come on, please. They are charities now are they?

              If you're worth 10 million, you don't need to claim $500 and you shouldn't. Given what I assume they would value their time at, they'd on paper be losing money by devoting any time to claiming it.

              The co-contribution was intended for genuine low asset/income people to help lift their retirement savings, not for millionaire families.

          • jv on 19/06/2024 - 09:26

            @JohnHowardsEyebrows:

            Yep, the determination that drove them to get rich

            I guess you could just sit around the house all day and binge on Netflix….

            • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 19/06/2024 - 09:28

              @jv: Or post 116948 comments on Ozbargain.

              • jv on 19/06/2024 - 09:31
                +5

                @JohnHowardsEyebrows: I get paid per 'click'.

                11% goes into super.

                (116949 by the way…)

                • b2dz on 19/06/2024 - 09:48

                  @jv: 😂

                • CVonC on 19/06/2024 - 15:28
                  +2

                  @jv:

                  I get paid per 'click'.

                  You should change your investment strategy to per neg vote.

                  • jv on 19/06/2024 - 15:40
                    +2

                    @CVonC: That is poor financial advice.

          • gfjh567gh3 on 19/06/2024 - 14:19
            -2

            @JohnHowardsEyebrows: implying that tax dollars are spent effectively…
            As a recent example, the US taxpayer recently funded a 6 figure plus program to promote homosexuality in Botswana.
            Imagine, your whole of life income tax receipts totalling one program for a non essential cultural program in a backwater African country.

            • Igaf on 19/06/2024 - 16:51
              +1

              @gfjh567gh3: Your characterisation of that as "promoting homosexuality" is instructive - the same religious nutjobbery which tried to throttle contraception and sex instruction on the same continent, and the same narrowmindedness which has led to harrassment, vilification, violence, liberty deprivation, and self-harm around the globe. Imagine a world where programs promoting inclusiveness and respect aren't necessary.

              My tax dollars help to shore up controlling "religious" institutions in Australia, some so extreme that they're rightly recognised as cults. Nearly all are hypocritical, as we saw with the abuse RC. Imagine if their supporters had to fund these clubs themselves.

            • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 19/06/2024 - 17:47
              +3

              @gfjh567gh3: I love it how people point to wasteful government initiatives (in this instance an entirely irrelevant case in the US) to provide a veneer of respectability to their pathological selfishness, as manifested in their aversion to taxes. Whether you're mature enough to accept the role of taxes in creating safety, comfort and opportunity in our society, you're benefiting from it all the same. We aren't a South American or African tinpot country where the taxes are all embezzled by the state (though the last federal government certainly indicated it wanted to head in that direction), so aversion to tax is aversion to providing the education, healthcare and amenity that you enjoyed.

        • Quppa on 19/06/2024 - 09:28
          +1

          The 10% eligible income test means completely non-working spouses aren't eligible for this.

          • Grunntt on 19/06/2024 - 10:31
            +2

            @Quppa:

            The 10% eligible income test means completely non-working spouses aren't eligible for this.

            Came across this a couple of days back - may be worth checking the current rules to see if you're eligible.

            If you’re aged 67 to 74, you no longer need to meet the work-test requirement when making certain contributions. However, if you intend to claim a tax deduction on your personal super contributions, you must still meet the work test

            From ATO

            Complete this section if you made contributions to a complying superannuation fund or a retirement savings account (RSA) on behalf of your spouse who is earning a low income or not working.

            This appears to indicate the work test doesn't apply (at least for spouse contributions - up to $3000 which result in an 18% tax offset).

      • Scrooge McDeal on 19/06/2024 - 09:25
        +1

        Can we highlight jv's comment? It's been a while to get such a meaningful comment from jv.

      • akl977ad on 19/06/2024 - 12:53
        +2

        How about the 18 or so millionaires that earnt over a million but had a taxable income of 0. That's less than 58445

        They're low income on paper according to the ATO.

        • jv on 19/06/2024 - 12:54

          How about the 18 or so millionaires that earnt over a million but had a taxable income of 0.

          What was their income and what were their expenses?

          • akl977ad on 19/06/2024 - 12:57

            @jv: Not sure as I'm not their accountant but here's the article

            Edit links don't work here but google the title recent article by the ABC

            102 millionaires paid no tax and the richest and poorest postcodes and occupations revealed

            Also it looks like it's 102 and not 18

            • jv on 19/06/2024 - 12:59

              @akl977ad:

              Not sure as I'm not their accountant

              Well, if their taxable income is less than the threshold, they can apply…

              I wonder if all 18 millionaires are CFMEU workers?

              • akl977ad on 19/06/2024 - 13:01

                @jv: Yes well to pay zero tax then most likely their taxable income would under the threshold is it still around 18000?

              • JohnHowardsEyebrows on 19/06/2024 - 17:48
                +1

                @jv: Being a *Collingwood supporter**, your defence of tax dodging suggests you are a class traitor

                • jv on 19/06/2024 - 18:05
                  -1

                  @JohnHowardsEyebrows:

                  you are a class traitor

                  Correct, I'm not in favour of polymorphism.

    • bulla3 on 18/06/2024 - 22:38
      +26

      Good examples would be part time spouses and older Australians who don't need to work full time, earning under threshold picking up a "50% return on investment" .

    • plmko on 18/06/2024 - 22:42
      +4

      Yes they do, you just have zero imagination.

    • lachlantula on 18/06/2024 - 23:00
      +1

      seems like a better investment than most others if you're young and privileged to be in a position where you have a roof over your head and meals on your plate that you're not paying for

      • Tyrx on 18/06/2024 - 23:05
        +10

        It's not designed for young people. It's a vote grab scheme built around older retirees who are asset rich and income poor, and funded using income taxes of everyone else.

        • Love a bargain on 19/06/2024 - 00:27
          +3

          Funded using CURRENT taxes

        • braddsey on 19/06/2024 - 00:29
          +11

          As soon as our 16-year-old pulls a paycheck from his Macca's job, we'll be helping him contribute to get the govt contribution. I'm hoping he's not a low-income earner for 10 years, but assuming he is and we contribute $1K/year for 10 years, plus get the $500 govt incentive - by the time that compounds until he can retire at 67, our $10K investment in his super should be worth in the region of $360K.

          • eddie eagle on 19/06/2024 - 00:41
            +4

            @braddsey: exactly what we are doing for our two kids, compounding over 45 years until they turn 60 and can access super after meeting a condition of release will make the $1500 (per year after govt co-contribution) sizeable.

          • Binchicken22 on 19/06/2024 - 06:16
            +5

            @braddsey: Sounds like a good idea, now we've just gotta hope Australia's financial system stays stable long enough for the kids to get something out of it.

            • braddsey on 19/06/2024 - 13:14

              @Binchicken22: Honestly i’d rather take my chances with the Australian superannuation system, than a government pension.
              With your super, you’re in control. Laws may change, but you can at least manage the asset.
              I will also draw a German state pension (not large). It’s so easy for that to be devalued by the government!

          • jv on 19/06/2024 - 09:23
            +3

            @braddsey:

            his super should be worth in the region of $360K.

            By that time, rest assured the government will be taxing your super on the way out…

            • braddsey on 19/06/2024 - 13:18

              @jv: Probably, but you get taxed where ever you legally invest, so take the tax breaks when they’re on offer.
              You can always leave it in your mattress, but the $10000 you put in your mattress now will be worth a whole lot less in 40 years…. but at least you didn’t pay tax on it!

        • Nubbin on 19/06/2024 - 07:32
          +3

          500 isn’t moving the needle for people at retirement age. The extra 500 /year will compound nicely and make a difference for younger people with an eye on retirement

          • jv on 19/06/2024 - 09:24
            +1

            @Nubbin:

            500 isn’t moving the needle

            It's free money….

        • Igaf on 19/06/2024 - 11:33

          It's not designed for young people. It's a vote grab scheme built around older retirees who are asset rich and income poor, and funded using income taxes of everyone else.

          Cynical, don't think the "income poor" claim is accurate or likely, but based on evidence to date you're not far off the mark. The Conversation analysis suggests the scheme has cost on average ~$1B/year for the last two decades and biggest uptake has been by wealthier and older taxpayers.
          https://images.theconversation.com/files/464136/original/fil…

          • jv on 19/06/2024 - 12:56
            -2

            @Igaf: It is literally free money for those who don't need the $1000 for their day to day living…

            For low income earners who need the money to pay rent and feed their families, it's just not going to happen, even though Albo will try and convince you he is helping them….

            • Igaf on 19/06/2024 - 13:34
              +4

              @jv: Albanese has nothing to do with it as you (cough) know. The concession has been available for 20+ years, during which times and financial circumstances have fluctuated considerably.

              Your simplistic twaddle aside, your newfound concern for the struggers is heartwarming, although an obvious contrast with your general conservative political bent. Turning over a new leaf or just more proselytizing to the lazy, gullible, ideologically-bound and intentionally ignorant? Rhetorical question.

              • jv on 19/06/2024 - 13:36

                @Igaf:

                Albanese has nothing to do with it

                Ummmm OK, the treasurer does it without consulting with the PM….🤣🤣🤣

                • Igaf on 19/06/2024 - 13:59

                  @jv: The Treasurer does what (add whatever kiddie emojis you feel are relevant)?

                  • jv on 19/06/2024 - 14:02

                    @Igaf:

                    (add whatever kiddie emojis you feel are relevant)

                    🤣🤣🤣

    • NoDiggerty on 18/06/2024 - 23:02
      +1

      Not at all true.

    • dyziplen on 18/06/2024 - 23:07
      +2

      You do realise you are commenting on Ozbargain right? A little goes a lot further around these parts.

    • lordra on 19/06/2024 - 01:59
      +1

      Well, if they put away $85 per month, or $42 per fortnight, or $21 per week, into their super, is very doable.

    • Dollar General on 19/06/2024 - 05:59
      +2

      I put the $1k into my wife’s super to claim this for our smsf

      • RaijnAU on 19/06/2024 - 09:57
        +2

        I was going to put into my wife's fund but as shes a stay-at-home Mum, she's not eligible.

        You'd think they'd care about her retirement too.

        • Igaf on 19/06/2024 - 11:41

          Indeed. Not as generous but you may be able to get a tax offset for contributing to your wife's account.

          https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/super-for-in…

          Don't put it off because it looks too complex.

          • RaijnAU on 19/06/2024 - 11:50

            @Igaf: Thanks for the heads up.

            In my case, I have enough in my bring forward that I get a better tax benefit putting money into my own fund.

    • M00Cow on 19/06/2024 - 07:00

      I know plenty of people cruising into retirement earning some pocket money who claim this. The other ones are those family business where the business earns the money amd paya everyone including the family dog a small wage.

    • SlickMick on 19/06/2024 - 07:59

      I always contributed for my daughter until she got married.

      • payless69 on 19/06/2024 - 08:24
        +2

        Nice dowry. Now you tell us!

    • Onemoredeal on 19/06/2024 - 08:04
      +1

      Except all the people working for cash dodging taxes

    • soulblighter on 19/06/2024 - 11:18

      ummm, you get the partner to deposit it for you using the after tax "self-contribution" BPAY details.

      • theredrabitt on 19/06/2024 - 18:08

        So there is a difference where funds paid in as 'spouse' use a different set of BPAY details and hence don't count for this?

        • soulblighter on 19/06/2024 - 21:24

          sorry, not clear what you mean but, when you login, the super account will have 2 BPAY details

          • contributions for self
          • contributions from spouse

          depending on which BPAY details you use to pay into, it is calculated as "that" contribution

          so anybody could use those details and that would be deemed as the contribution it is linked to when paid into it.

          for example:

          you = Mr. A
          your spouse = Ms. B

          your super account = SA
          your spouse's super account = SB

          your super account BPAY details
          - self contribution = SSA
          - spouse contribution = SPSA

          your spouse's super account BPAY details
          - self contribution = SSB
          - spouse contribution = SPSB

          so you decide to top up using your bank account CBA, in this scenario let's assume that you're making all the 4 contributions above using ONE single bank account

          • deposit into your self super = SSA
          • deposit into your self super = SPSA
          • deposit into your self super = SSB
          • deposit into your self super = SPSB

          and say your spouse earns less than the min threshold and you deposit $3k

          on your tax return
          you get your $540 offset
          you topped up your super (self + spouse)
          you topped up your spouse's super (self + spouse)

          all using the same bank account

          works just fine

          but if you're really paranoid about the accounts the deposits originate from, you could just transfer it into your spouse's bank account and make the transfer / swap. Just some additional to-ing and fro-ing that is all

    • Wongman on 19/06/2024 - 11:37
      +1

      You might find that a spouse is working part time or casually while the breadwinner is earning alot more. Can just contribute from disposable hosuehold income.
      Easy way to earn a guaranteed 50% return on a $1,000 investment if eligible.

    • dongltron on 19/06/2024 - 12:45
      +2

      I'm 18 years of age, come from a low income family, and have done all my savings myself. This certainly helps me. Don't discount the impact this has on those who ARE in that situation. It's not as few people as you think.

    • chunfat on 19/06/2024 - 18:11

      Still for the rich.

      The bread winner earns $1M pa.
      The spouse of bread winner only needs to be employed for 1hours work during the tax year.

      (voilà) here is your eligibility to this extra co-contribution super by using your spouse money as you own.

      As a extra icing on top for the rich, the bread winner can also claim a [Spouse superannuation contribution tax offset] (https://www.ato.gov.au/individuals-and-families/super-for-in…).

      Policies that benefits the rich a little bit more than the poor.

      • braddsey on 19/06/2024 - 19:47

        Assuming the rich is paying tax at the appropriate rate, they’re contributing much more than they’re getting back, so nothing to complain about.

  • Lizard Spock on 18/06/2024 - 22:33
    +27

    So these people aren't earning much to start with and the government wants them to put more money away into super? Am I missing the logic here? Or is this an incentive for those closer to retirement?

    • Igaf on 19/06/2024 - 11:51
      +2

      I assume the aim is to encourage long term personal super investment so that future budgetary pressures on the aged pension are reduced. Iirc extrapolations of future govt pension liabilities showed a huge black hole, hence the Labor/ACTU push for compulsory employer super contributions back in the 90s.

  • jv on 18/06/2024 - 22:35
    +24

    earning less than $58,445

    Per month?

    So CFMEU workers might scrape in… just….

  • cook99 on 18/06/2024 - 22:38
    +23

    Everyone on Ozbargain is on $300k per year so this isn't the place for this

    • CacheHunter on 18/06/2024 - 23:18
      +7

      Everyone on Ozbargain is on $300k per year

      But some of those $300k Ozbargainers might have a low income spouse. This is a great incentive to put something aside in the low income earner's super.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join