The Turnbull Government

[PZ.]

You think so?
You explain to me, why any young person, or indeed anybody would put any of their own money into super?
I'll look forward to your answer tomorrow, when you have thought of something.lol

They wouldn't.

But it's got nothing to do with politics. Young people don't look at that stage because it's too far away and they are usually maxed out in debt. Ask anyone under 40 about the super rules and I reckon you'll be struggling to get a correct answer.

 

[SirRumpole]

That really didn't answer the question, I said why would anyone put any of their own money into super?
Still struggling to find an answer?

So that they can have a relatively comfortable retirement and not have to rely on a meagre government pension.

 

[Junior]

That really didn't answer the question, I said why would anyone put any of their own money into super?
Still struggling to find an answer?

The fundamentals haven't really changed for a middle-income worker.

* Contributions into super are tax deductible and then taxed at 15% in the Fund (so a tax saving of at least 15% for the average worker)
* Earnings tax in super is 15% (versus MTR of >30% outside super)
* Earnings tax in retirement of 0%
* Pension income taxed at 0%

Still an attractive system for most.

 

[sptrawler]

So that they can have a relatively comfortable retirement and not have to rely on a meagre government pension.

They can do that outside of super and have the security of knowledge, that they can spend it as and when they want to.

 

[SirRumpole]

They can do that outside of super and have the security of knowledge, that they can spend it as and when they want to.

They can convert super to a lump sum and do the same thing.

 

[sptrawler]

The fundamentals haven't really changed for a middle-income worker.

* Contributions into super are tax deductible and then taxed at 15% in the Fund (so a tax saving of at least 15% for the average worker)
* Earnings tax in super is 15% (versus MTR of >30% outside super)
* Earnings tax in retirement of 0%
* Pension income taxed at 0%

Still an attractive system for most.

The down side to this, is as has been shown lately, you have no control over the final outcome.
For example, what is to stop the politicians, from forcing super to be taken as an annuity?
Or in fact placing a tax on earnings, in retirement phase, as Labor suggested at the previous election.
As I said earlier, the underlying belief that super is your money, to help you enjoy a better retirement has been completely shattered.
Labor has shown it is their money, not yours, and they will decide how you will use it.
Why anyone would put extra in, is a mystery to me.

 

[sptrawler]

They can convert super to a lump sum and do the same thing.

That will be stopped next, take that to the bank.

 

[Junior]

For example, what is to stop the politicians, from forcing super to be taken as an annuity?
Or in fact placing a tax on earnings, in retirement phase, as Labor suggested at the previous election.

Because they will be voted out of office.

It's one thing trying to cap account balance at $1.6mill or scale back refund of excess franking credits, another thing trying to restrict lump-sum access to super for everyone, or to apply a tax on earnings which could exceed personal tax rates. This impacts the entire population and would be a very, very unpopular measure. It won't happen.

As a side-note, I do not advocate that those under 40 or 50 years old make additional super contributions. But certainly those who are <10 years away from retirement should seek to include super conts as a key component of their retirement plan, IMO.

 

[SirRumpole]

That will be stopped next, take that to the bank.

It was actually the Libs who attacked super.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...-by-abbott-super-changes-20140903-10by18.html

 

[sptrawler]

It was actually the Libs who attacked super.

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...-by-abbott-super-changes-20140903-10by18.html

The Libs only capped what could be put in, or held in super, not how it is treated.

 

[SirRumpole]

The Libs only capped what could be put in, or held in super, not how it is treated.

So why should they do that ?

 

[Junior]

Tax legislation changes all the time, under any Government. We can only plan based on the rules as they exist, and allow ourselves flexibility in the event they do change.

If there is a massive tax saving to be had by increasing your super conts, that simply needs to be weighed up against the risk that the Government will change the rules again.

 

[sptrawler]

So why should they do that ?

By doing that, it stops people amassing 10 of millions of dollars in super, which then just makes it tax avoidance.
But it still makes it a reasonable investment vehicle, in which workers can invest extra money to get a better retirement it would even attract people to sell a well located principal residence to put the money in(which I did).
What Labor suggested pre the last election, of taxing super pensions when they reach $100,000 per anum wasn't a bad idea.
What they are suggesting now, when the limits on pension have been dropped, and they are using figures pre the new limits to justify it.
Is just blatant lying, to support ridiculously oppressive measures. IMO

 

[SirRumpole]

By doing that, it stops people amassing 10 of millions of dollars in super, which then just makes it tax avoidance.

It's tax avoidance to pay only 15% tax on super contributions.

 

[sptrawler]

It's tax avoidance to pay only 15% tax on super contributions.

It's tax avoidance, to spend all your money pre retirement, and get a full pension tax free.
At least super pays 15% on earnings, in accumulation, and doesn't get the first $18,000 tax free.

 

[bellenuit]

It's tax avoidance to pay only 15% tax on super contributions.

It's not tax avoidance to pay the designated tax rate.

 

[SirRumpole]

It's not tax avoidance to pay the designated tax rate.

Sure , but the legislation has been designed to let upper income earners avoid tax.

 

[sptrawler]

Sure , but the legislation has been designed to let upper income earners avoid tax.

That's why the caps were put on last year, to limit how much someone can have in a super funded pension.

Maybe they should apply some limits, to how much tax payer funded pension you can get, commensurate with how much tax you have paid, or how many years you've worked, unless you have a disability?

See how that would go down with the untouchables. lol

 

[SirRumpole]

For God's sake, don't bring out the truth, it could cause a loss of confidence

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-...cause-a-credit-crunch-and-hit-economy/9579654

 

[sptrawler]

Anyway Rumpy your safe, no one is going to touch you, sit back and enjoy.

Getting back to Turnbull, he really needs to think about stepping down and giving the next generation a go.
How the hell Billy, has got into a position of being muted as the next PM, is down to Turnbull.
He has made the unelectable, possible, that's a travesty.