crackaton said:a business operating as sole trader gets the 1500$ if they contribute 1000$ and are within the limits for that supa contribution. So if you run a small business, say Dick Grass Lawn mowing, and make only say 35K for the year, and contribute 1000 to your supa government will chip in 1500 and your income is 34k. Pretty sure but check because I am no accoutant.
Duckman#72 said:That is incorrect to my knowledge. If you are eligible to claim the super as a self employed person you are ineligible for the co-contribution regardless of income limits and whether you are operating as a sole trader. The only exception is if you had both a salary/wage job as well as your own business - there is potential for the claim inthat case.
And I agree with your earlier comments Crackaton and Prospector about the fairer sex rorting the system! And yes it does sux!
ghotib said:I agree with you about employee perceptions, but I still think that compulsory contributions are not a tax because they're not government revenue and government can't spend them. The money doesn't go to government (except for unfunded public service funds, but that's another story); it goes to superannuation funds. From the government point of view, compulsory super is the same as private medical insurance.
Duckman#72 said:Call it what you like but it is a tax. ha ha
Prospector said:And while the Govt doesnt directly receive monies paid into super, they still receive 15% on any profit; the same on any CGTax, and until recently tax from the high earner's surcharge. And the only reason why the Govt has become proactive about super is because they can't afford to pay the high rate of pensions once us lot reach the retirement age.
So having said all that, actually, it IS A TAX!
crackaton said:You're right. Supa is dead money. Better places to put.
Care to elaborate?Duckman#72 said:Super does have advantages. For investments (except for borrowing money) why would you have equities invested outside a superannuation vehicle? The system could be redesigned but don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
crackaton said:Care to elaborate?
Duckman#72 said:Well for starters - let's say you were a taxpayer on 50K per year.
Let's also say that you have $100,000 to invest and you think Westpac, RIO, Telstra and Woolies shares are a great investment opportunity over the next 5 years. It's much better to invest in the super fund. Income is taxed at 15% and capital gains at 10%.
The only disadvantage being you don't have access to the money and you cannot use as equity for borrowings.
anon said:Regardless of what classification superannuation is placed in, it is a cost to the employer which has to be recouped if he is to stay in business. Thus, since neither the Treasury nor the Tax Office will refund that money, the employer has to pass this superannuation expense on to the consumers in form of higher costs.
Duckman#72 said:Thankyou for everyones contributions.
The general consenus seems clear enough - employers/small business are sick of having costs forced upon them, that are eating away at margins and do nothing to encourage employment fo more staff.
Duckman
robert toms said:Were not wage rises bargained away for superannuation contributions by the employer?
Duckman#72 said:However, if you are over the income limits set by the ATO and you don't have private health cover - you are hit with a Medicare Levy "Surcharge". And what is a surcharge I hear you ask? That's right - another name for TAX!! So maybe I am agreeing with you Ghotib!!!
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?