PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,330
- Reactions
- 2,446
That's an interesting comment about the ATO reporting requirement.
I'm assuming it's aimed at people withdrawing their super illegally ?
That's an interesting comment about the ATO reporting requirement.If you look back to the my posts, when Labor suggested the taxing of super incomes above $100k, I fully supported it and still do.
What I dissagree with is, the removal of the franking credit, takes 30% of much lower incomes.
Therefore those, as I who are trying to achieve an income above inflation, are going to be screwed.
Shares are paying about 5% give or take, with the franking credit that goes to about 7%, without the franking credit and with the ever increasing minimum drawdown, shares will have to be sold to fund it.
That is o.k, while inflation is low, but becomes a real issue as inflation increases.
Rates in our location have gone from $1,400 to $2,000 in the last 2 years. Electricity has gone from 12c/unit to 25c/unit in the past 8years, the supply charge doubled last year.
It is only the fact that there is a supermarket war on, that the cost of food has had a lid on it, for the last few years.
Like I said, there will be a huge problem, when inflation in the Western World kicks off, and all Governments are pushing for it to kick off.
Also the ATO has introduced a reporting requirement, that any large sums removed from super, have to be immediately reported. Make of that, what you will.
The minimum contribution is compulsory, the government is still actively providing incentives to get people to invest more over and above the minimum.
--------
Also, just because someone is withdrawing $100K per year from their super doesn't mean the super is earning $100K per year, Some of that is capital that is already been taxed when it was originally earned.
If I earn $100, pay $15 in super contribution tax so my super account is raised by $85 when it comes time to withdraw it I shouldn't have to pay tax on it, its my money after tax, you don't pay tax when you withdraw your after tax wages form you account
That's an interesting comment about the ATO reporting requirement.
I'm assuming it's aimed at people withdrawing their super illegally ?
Also, just because someone is withdrawing $100K per year from their super doesn't mean the super is earning $100K per year, Some of that is capital that is already been taxed when it was originally earned.
I'm sure that could be accounted for.
Oh, sorry. The NBN is off budget because it's a "financial asset investment".
The funds come from investment - super funds have diversified interests in the NBN for a small return. They buy govt bonds and that money goes to NBNCo.
Which means the intention is to either pay for itself or sell it off. The same thing happens with nation building projects like roads etc. We have around $80b in an off budget fund as a "headline deficit". Most of it from the Abbott/Turnbull govts I might add
It's not part of our federal budget quagmire - so technically it's not paid for by taxpayers.
As for stop handing our welfare to people who wont work for it, I agree completely - save for the people who really need it.
can you provide info here please.......I am currently thinking that this is a long standing requirement to do with access prior to 60 years of age (65yrs) type scenarios ..........but happy to learn................
Also the ATO has introduced a reporting requirement, that any large sums removed from super, have to be immediately reported. Make of that, what you will.
The current system does account for it, as far as I understand the bulk of super is taxed
eg. the money you put in from your wages over your life is taxed, and the earnings that are earned during the life of the super fund are taxed, and its only right at the end of the super funds life during the pension phase that the earnings become tax free, but by then the bulk of the funds are after tax capital.
can you provide info here please.......I am currently thinking that this is a long standing requirement to do with access prior to 60 years of age (65yrs) type scenarios ..........but happy to learn
thanks, googled already and will have another whilst waiting...As far as I'm aware, as from July1 it applies to funds in the pension phase. Junior or one of the other specialists, can probably give the exact provisions.
I wouldn't want to state something that isn't accurate, as I have no qualifications, regarding finance or tax.
thanks, googled already and will have another whilst waiting...
Aside, if u r not prepared to just make stuff up then i am afraid the internet has no place for people like you.
lol
Early retirement is very alive and well.
Just wander down to any Social Security
Office and you’ll find a whole room full
Of experts.
Sun Surf lazy afternoons
Work—-why?
Both are a life style choice how good
IS the lucky country!
So this is for SMSF's with balances over 1 million then. That's fair enough.Here is a link to the new reporting system, I think it is called event based reporting.
https://www.hlb.com.au/event-based-reporting-impacts-smsfs/
It is to do with anything, that affects your transfer balance cap.
You just wanna hope that it's still there when you reach 67.spot on spitrawler, if you 45yrs +up, own your home or close too it the pension is no brainer for a couple
spot on spitrawler, if you 45yrs +up, own your home or close too it the pension is no brainer for a couple
The individual circumstances are that I've taken your advice and blown all my dough on a Lamborghini and a fridge with 6G internet to qualify for the pension. So has everyone else. The age of entitlement is alive and well. Then the pension has to be rolled out to the entire aged population.
Enter Labor. We can't afford it so it gets abolished. WhatdoIdo ? lol
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?