Super is though meant to be about having money, that you spend, in retirement.My good friend is semi-retired, and his skill base is finance and accounting, he went over the proposed changes and came up with pretty much what you have mentioned, and that most people think that it will not affect them because they'll never reach th $3m. And this morning I read this -
And when Jim Chalmers 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.
the Libs had plenty of time before the last electionSuper is though meant to be about having money, that you spend, in retirement.
It's a tax break. Deserved.
It shouldn't be about leaving $millions to subsequent generations.
I am sure the amount will rise over time, its just that, like income tax the politicians want to say when it happens - to get votes.
You watch what happens next election.
A modern day Menzies.the Libs had plenty of time before the last election
if someone here is relatively young ( under 60 ) and think they can do a reasonable job , they should start creating a political movement ... and try for the top job
Super is though meant to be about having money, that you spend, in retirement.
It's a tax break. Deserved.
It shouldn't be about leaving $millions to subsequent generations.
Super is though meant to be about having money, that you spend, in retirement.
It's a tax break. Deserved.
It shouldn't be about leaving $millions to subsequent generations.
I am sure the amount will rise over time, its just that, like income tax the politicians want to say when it happens - to get votes.
You watch what happens next election.
You missed my point. It is not indexed as it will be an election promise.Like the article mentions, I don't think that you understand what the issue is going to be; "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."
"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."
Ask a financial advisor about how quickly someone's super can reach $3m, with good investments and inflation. Ask if that $3M figure is indexed to inflation, ask how withdrawals affect the $3M rule.
You missed my point. It is not indexed as it will be an election promise.
Libs will say they will get rid of it, labor will say they will increase it to $3.5mil and make the Libs look bad.
Smart politics.
It is a retirement fund that has morphed in to a cross generational tax effective vehicle. I'm no fan of the ALP but they reckon it will only affect 80,000 of the ultra rich, and they are probably as we speak finding a way around it.
It's swings and roundabouts. You win some, you lose some.
I would never ever trust what a politicians says.
They are all a mob of deceitful, deceiving bastards. i before e except after c.
gg
Treasury thinks it's up to 100,000 but they're already old figures .It is wider than just 80k.
As I have posted previously, it's a very hard slog but people may wish to read the Explanatory Memorandum associated with the bill which is currently before the Senate. Draconian is an understatement.
And, as a SMSF holder, aware of and utilising the strategies , I'm just glad when I downsized, did the $300k contribution plus 3x maximum contributions, that I then took out more than that to spend on my new PPR to stay comfortably below the touted pain points .For the sake of balance, if not fairness, I understand why this approach is being taken.
However, it's my view that does not justify the sledgehammer approach.
Just noting:For the sake of balance, if not fairness, I understand why this approach is being taken. From the last figures I saw, admittedly a while ago, the cost to revenue of superannuation concessions was close to $40B pa and climbing. More than likely Treasury is saying "We're bleeding here."
However, it's my view that does not justify the sledgehammer approach.
My worthless two cents.
You are already matching in this sickening ATO mindset: any tax not taken is a loss..
Report from the University of Adelaide
After reviewing data on more than 720,000 SMSF members each year over the financial years ending in 2021 and 2022, the University of Adelaide’s International Centre for Financial Services report concluded that:
“Taxation on unrealised capital gains is rare among OECD countries, and rarer still in OECD pension systems. Australia’s tax system clearly delineates between income and capital gain taxes (CGT), and the CGT regime, which has been in place now for almost 40 years, is based primarily on realised gains evidenced by completed transactions. Given both the benchmarking to other OECD nations and Australia’s own economic history, we interpret the structure of the current proposal — to reduce superannuation tax concessions for individuals with TSBs in excess of $3 million — as a somewhat radical departure from existing taxation policy, with potentially far broader consequences than just those outlined by Treasury in their consultation paper.
And, as a SMSF holder, aware of and utilising the strategies , I'm just glad when I downsized, did the $300k contribution plus 3x maximum contributions, that I then took out more than that to spend on my new PPR to stay comfortably below the touted pain points .
Thereagain, a bit player, wage earner, self- funded orang kecil, I'll keep my head down. Probably said too much already
I love this. Not getting taxes that they are not legally entitled to is a "cost to revenue ".the cost to revenue of superannuation concessions was close to $40B pa and climbing. More than likely Treasury is saying "We're bleeding here."
Spot on.Just noting:
"The cost to revenue of super.."
You are already matching in this sickening ATO mindset: any tax not taken is a loss..
The loss to revenue of GST is xxx billions as GST is not yet 250%. Or whatever...
See how easy it is for the ATO to state that they "deserves" basically everything
Concession..sure...
Sure, it is more how are we even accepting such statements with straight faces and not the outrageous and entitled bloodsucking and money wasting these governments are.Do not attribute me with that aspect if you don't mind. You may not like it but I do attempt to look at matters from multiple viewpoints and not a fixed one of It's just unfair no matter what.
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?