Sign up for our free 8-week step-by-step e-course on how to land that dream job at one of Australia's top banks.Learn More

Dr. Mark Sinclair
Dr. Mark Sinclair, Mentor Education

Govt’s decision to scrap $2000 education cap receives a warm welcome.

12 November 2013
Mark Rantall FPA chief executive

The coalition’s decision to turn scrap the controversial $2,000 cap on self-education deductibles has been warmly welcomed by advice industry associations.

The Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) and the Financial Planning Association (FPA) have supported the coalition’s decision to abolish the Labor government’s $2,000 cap on self-education claiming it a “win for education” that will “help build industry professionalism.”

Prior to the coalitions’ election victory the Labour party was under considerable pressure from universities and industry groups to dispense with the controversial tax that they introduced in order to cease what they say was the rorting of individuals from abusing the system by claiming items such as first-class travel to overseas conferences, however the backlash from the public and the coalition government suggested that there were other ways of targeting alleged rorts and such a tax would, “dent professional career progression.”

Mark Rantall, the FPA chief said of the government’s decision to scrap the tax that was dubbed a ‘tax on learning’ was “a win for the education of financial planners and the millions of Australians they provide advice to.”

Rantall added that, “ongoing education and training is crucial to many professions, and particularly for financial planners coping with an ever-changing legislative environment. The FPA does not support a capping of education and training, which in all professions is integral to the ongoing trust, confidence and quality of services delivered to consumers.

Both the AFA and the FPA have also expressed their support for the coalation’s decision to end taxes for individual pension earnings over $100,000 commenting that, “the proposal to tax earnings on super assets supporting income streams would have been costly, difficult to administer and would de-incentivise contributions of the superannuation systems.”