- Joined
- 20 July 2021
- Posts
- 13,696
- Reactions
- 19,069
looks to me like a good reason to revisit ( ASX-listed ) accounting firms , there might be extra business coming their way , and a potential bump in growth/profitsFor the first case, it is only if the $3.2m notional value grows to, say, $3.3m, then the $100,000 growth is the earnings of the fund and attracts the tax. However, I think the notional value stays the same for the life of the pension, so no growth and no tax.
If the lucky guy's DB is indexed, maybe the notional value is recalculated when his 200k pa grows? Dunno.
For the second case, my understanding is that the tax is levied not directly on the $280k, but on the earnings of the $280k. Perhaps $28k to be taxed at 30%.
Maybe that is what you were saying. All I know is that my brain hurts.
For the first case, it is only if the $3.2m notional value grows to, say, $3.3m, then the $100,000 growth is the earnings of the fund and attracts the tax. However, I think the notional value stays the same for the life of the pension, so no growth and no tax.
If the lucky guy's DB is indexed, maybe the notional value is recalculated when his 200k pa grows? Dunno.
For the second case, my understanding is that the tax is levied not directly on the $280k, but on the earnings of the $280k. Perhaps $28k to be taxed at 30%.
and that is the kicker ( in the teeth ) , it would include values of property , art and other investments that would be comparatively illiquid ( in your SMSF )Again, it is not on earnings, it is on change in capital value.
It's a bummer piece of legislation in my view.
My understanding is that it is a tax on earnings and the earnings may include unrealised capital gains. The earnings could all be unrealised capital gains, all dividends, interest rent etc or a combination of these.I think you may be incorrect. It is a tax on unrealised capital gains which is at the core of this legislation. It has no relationship at all with a person's Balance Cap which stays with you for life.
I checked my total superannuation balance in my MyGov account. The component for defined benefit notional value hasn't changed since I started the DB pension in 2018. It has stayed at 16x the annualised DB pension I got in 2018, although my DB pension has increased by CPI every 6 months since then. Maybe this will change under Div 296, but I haven't heard of this happening yet.DB pensions indexed by the CPI will eventually be caught by this legislation. DB pensions are like the undead. No matter how long the person is alive the notional value is always calculated by annual pension x 16
As per the first point, earnings is to include the change in capital value.Again, it is not on earnings, it is on change in capital value.
aren't realized/crystallized capital gains already liable to tax , as well as income ( divs., interest and rent )My understanding is that it is a tax on earnings and the earnings may include unrealised capital gains. The earnings could all be unrealised capital gains, all dividends, interest rent etc or a combination of these.
I agree it has no relationship to the balance cap.
The component for defined benefit notional value hasn't changed since I started the DB pension in 2018
doing a great job.
I've reached my limited knowledge of how it's going to work
and therein lies the sting.and how nasty it could get for some.
Unrealised capital gains, will certainly make accounting by big super funds interesting, fudge factors will cost.
I wasn't aware that under Div 296 the DB pension notional value will increase as you describe, but I haven't dived into all the depths of the Div 296 proposal. The example you give shows how they could bring in a few more dollars, so it doesn't surprise me if that is what they plan.It hasn't because that is actually the calculated Balance Cap based on the pension when the Transfer Balance Cap was introduced in 2017 or when the pension commenced after that year which in your case is 2018. It doesn't change despite the DB increasing by CPI. For Div 296 it is proposed to include current annual DB pension multiplied by 16 as part of the $3m+ equation.
Say your initial pension in 2018 was $50k pa. Your Balance Cap is $50k x 16 = $800,000. That Balance Cap does not change for the rest of your life. In 2025, assume your pension has increased to $56k. It is that amount x 16 ($896,000) which will be included for the purposes of Div 296. As the DB is increased by CPI every year so in 2026FY if the pension is now $57k ($912,000) will be included for Div 296 calculations.
Exactly.Think in these terms. A person on 1 July holds a portfolio valued at $2.5m. Receives dividends and distributions and includes those in tax return but does not change the holdings; there are no buys, sales, withdraws or contributions. On 30 June the value of the holdings have increased to $3.1m. The ATO turns around and says "The value has increased by $100k over $3m so you owe tax on that $100k." That is - in simplified terms - what is being proposed to occur in superannuation.
If their total super balance at June 30 last year was higher, say $1.66 million or more, but under $1.78 million, they could make non-concessional contributions of up to two times the general cap – up to $240,000 – without exceeding their non-concessional contributions cap.“The mechanics of working out the increase to your personal transfer balance cap are complicated.”
Perhaps they were only thinking of super in industry type funds when they designed this.
Doubt it. I'll wager most industry funds do not have balances anywhere near $3m. This legislation is targeted at SMSFs.
on a related challenge. stay with me now
It’s a tax on innovation. It’s a tax on creating the jobs of the future. It’s exactly the part of the economy we should not be taxing,” “It’s a disaster.”
“It will have an absolutely chilling effect on people who invest in start-up companies,” “I will never invest in a start-up company in my super fund again"
and then there's the mums and dads argument:“It’s going to be harder to raise money. You have to wonder what will happen to all the innovation and the start-ups,”
... but, no it's the tax avoidance strategy that should get the blowtorch.the tax undermined efforts ...to encourage people to invest in start-ups, as retail investors would normally do this through their super because it was usually their second-biggest asset after their house.
Which then means that over time, an increasing number of industry funds members will reach the 3 million mark.If some bothered to explore further rather than skim, they will realise the $3m will NOT be indexed under the proposed legislation.
Which then means that over time, an increasing number of industry funds members will reach the 3 million mark.
According to APRA, the average return on retail super funds is a tad over 7% a year.
It takes a bout 10 years to double the stake at that rate.
It may take some time, but it will happen.
Mick
Which then means that over time, an increasing number of industry funds members will reach the 3 million mark.
According to APRA, the average return on retail super funds is a tad over 7% a year.
It takes a bout 10 years to double the stake at that rate.
It may take some time, but it will happen.
Mick
Chalmers’ super tax is very smart, that’s why it’s so cruel
The cleverest thing about the proposed new tax on unrealised gains in high-balance superannuation accounts maybe the man selling it.
One of the clever things about Labor’s plan to tax unrealised gains in high-balance superannuation accounts is that, initially, at least, hardly anyone will be affected.
After all, if you want to fundamentally change the principles of how taxation works, it helps if people don’t notice at first.
It also helps to hide it behind something that might promote more outrage, like not indexing the rate at which the new $3 million cap (or maybe $2 million) will kick in.
But the really clever thing is that the people who will be hit hardest by it probably aren’t even aware it’s happening because their super balance is currently nowhere near that big-sounding $3 million mark.
The government is counting on Jim Chalmers’ charm to help sell its new tax on superannuation. Alex Ellinghausen
Cry me a river, they might be saying, anyone with that much in super is wealthy, so why shouldn’t they pay the tax? That’s what Jim Chalmers is banking on, anyway.
Which is another reason Chalmers is the one selling the tax to the public: he really is charming.
I’ve never been in the press gallery, but I have interviewed and spoken to my share of politicians over the years, and every one of them has had a certain amount of charm in real life – it’s why we elect them in the first place.
Even Barnaby Joyce, who at the time had the public persona of a deranged country bumpkin (or passionate defender of rural Australia, if we are being polite), was all reasonableness and calm when he was speaking off-record and wasn’t playing a part.
Some politicians play it angry in public, some play the technocrat, some play the guy on your side – but Chalmers oozes charm.
So when Chalmers, with a leprechaun twinkle in his eye, says less than 80,000 people (or 0.5 per cent of all super account holders) will be hit by the tax on unrealised gains, I don’t want to disbelieve him.
It’s just that he is talking about a number that is more than two years old – dating way back to February 2023. You’d have to think that inflation would have pushed a few more into the target zone since then. And on the government’s numbers, about 10 per cent of account holders will have to pay the tax by 2053.
And when he reels off the numbers with an easy smile, plenty of people are going to miss what he is saying. Especially those that aren’t engaged with financial advice.
If their superannuation is in an industry or a retail fund, they don’t really have a reason to worry either. That’s because those funds don’t tend to sit on unrealised gains.
The same is true of wealthy family offices and self-managed superannuation funds with good advisers. They might regularly rebalance their portfolios or adopt any number of sophisticated strategies to prepare for and deal with the new tax.
That’s why you don’t hear too much from them about the tax. They treat it as a fact of life. They can work out the best strategies to manage it, just like they have done with all the other changes to superannuation over the years.
But the people who will be cruelled by the tax are not sophisticated and they probably are not paying attention.
Take the farmer who only looks at her super every couple of years. She’s too busy.
Or the unadvised owner of small businesses who puts their Sydney premises into their superannuation.
Or the mid-30s couple that plan to buy a couple of apartments in their self-managed superannuation fund after a property seminar.
If those properties double in value every 10 or so year, a reasonable assumption given the performance of the real estate market over the past 30 years, that $1 million Sydney business premises will be worth $4 million in 20 years and those two Queensland apartments, bought for $600,000 each, will be worth $4.8 million.
If either of the people in the above scenarios were in their 30s, that means their super balances will be well north of $3 million by then, given their 12 per cent salary contributions.
And they are going to have to find the money by either selling that asset or digging in to their non-super earnings.
In this way, the tax on unrealised gains is a tax on unsophisticated investors because they may not know they are liable for it until they get the bill.
But readers of this paper needn’t worry. They have been warned.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?