- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,450
- Reactions
- 24,249
You may like other people looking after your money, I'm not a big fan of it.
Maintain the current dividend imputation system
- Thread starter willy1111
- Start date
You may like other people looking after your money, I'm not a big fan of it.
Yes, whilst I was typing. I will need to learn speed typing if I am to keep up - there were 6 posts between my decision to respond and when I actually hit "post".
- Joined
- 15 July 2018
- Posts
- 9
- Reactions
- 4
The proposal isn’t to abolish imputation credits but to roll back the cash refunds introduced by the Howard liberal government.
The first thing you should check, is how many people have a SMSF anywhere near $12m.
If I was that rich the last thing I would be doing, is putting it away where the Government can tell me how to spend it.
FFS how stupid do you think people with $12m are?
The only people that Labor are going to hit, are hard working Australian's, who have either worked hard to save or worked hard to build a small business.
As usual the plebs with the pitchforks, follow the rant, and want to hunt down the non conforming. lol
Nothing much changes through the centuries.
To be receiving a $12M fully franked dividend, they would have a shite load more than that in smsf.
I would also imagine they would have considerable wealth outside Super. But as far as a tax advantaged structure goes, Super is pretty hard to beat so certainly worthwhile for the Rich to have some percentage of their net worth there.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,450
- Reactions
- 24,249
It is selective on who it rolls it back on, which is discriminatory, it should be rolled back fairly. Not just roll it back on a select few, that Labor wants to pick on.
But honesty and fairness, seems to be a lost characteristic these days.
Why should Industry super funds still be able to claim them, when SMSF's can't?
Why should some pensioners, get them, while others can't?
just making the point ..........that is a sorta "grandfathered" situation though ....it cannot sorta occur in the future for "new" accounts with the introduction of the caps - both concessional and non concessional.
1. only cos they still accept concessional contributions (lots of them) that is my understanding there ..
2. that will need some looking at ...and brings in sapto and stuff ...but I agree it is not a consistent application of the argument. But then a lot of the tax laws are not consistent.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,450
- Reactions
- 24,249
A SMSF can still accept concessional contributions, so that doesn't hold water.
Because it affects so few people, it won't be looked at.
If it affected those in Industry funds, it would be looked at, but in reality it is those who are pushing it. Typical Labor in bed with the Unions. IMO
on the 2nd, i agree, the white knight can only be liberals there ....or peeps have to start massaging assets again (just when they did not prolly want that headache at stages of life).
on the 1st, i have not done sums, nor read a totally clear policy on this, but it is the ratio of accumulation accounts as compared to pension accounts that is the thing there in my head ...unless I am off-track on the proposal (which may be true). That is what the SMSF cannot compete with in this proposal. SMSF are usually one or the other (either accum or pension and limited in total funds under management).
I expect that when more than 33% of the industry fund totals are held as pension accounts then it may not work for them either ......but again, have not done the sums.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,450
- Reactions
- 24,249
Well 50% of the members of my SMSF are on pension, the other in accumulation.
are you able to do the projected sums ....i would think the $25K concessional limit is the glass ceiling to your available claw back for u anyway (so I mean that the unpaid contribution tax is only 15% of $25K to help with the franking problem u may face).Well 50% of the members of my SMSF are on pension, the other in accumulation.
It has taken 20 years for the current SMSF thinking to be "developed". This is gunna take a while to unwind (if it comes). I actually feel bad for those affected for that reason ....they were sorta "sold" a future that is now in doubt ..... I do not envy your position at all - but only wish you well.
what I mean there is accum members can only add $25K of "new" untaxed capital into the fund that will be taxed at entry at 15%. (so not a big offset available) All of your other tax owing will be coming from accum investment performance (and that will prolly include the 30% franking amounts that will be your "problem")
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,218
- Reactions
- 17,294
That’s all well and good but what about those who are lower income but not receiving a pension?
Eg a semi-retired person who works two days a week and has investments outside of superannuation?
Or someone in their late 50’s who is made redundant, employer goes bust or whatever ans who plans to live funded by their investments until they reach the age when super or pension becomes an option.
The sort of person who has done the right thing to look after themselves but who’d have close to zero chance of getting full time work due to age, health or whatever. I see no valid reason to be punishing such people.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,450
- Reactions
- 24,249
It will only mean, that I will be on a part age pension at some time, which I wouldn't have been on if they left it alone.
So it is a bit of the roundabout and swings scenario, I lose income, but will gain a handout.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,963
- Reactions
- 12,449
Neither do I , but at the moment we have no idea how many such people there are and what sort of refund they usually get as to whether it would be a great loss to them.
Maybe Labor have done their sums on it I don't know. As we get closer to the election maybe people adversely affected by it will speak up.
and the extension of that analysis is ........ (and only you can do yours)It will only mean, that I will be on a part age pension at some time, which I wouldn't have been on if they left it alone.
So it is a bit of the roundabout and swings scenario, I lose income, but will gain a handout.
if that is the end point with the highest probability for you then what are the advantages/disadvantages of getting to that place faster/slower.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,450
- Reactions
- 24,249
That will be factored in, I have a few years to wait to qualify, so if it comes in my lifestyle will change somewhat.
- Joined
- 15 July 2018
- Posts
- 9
- Reactions
- 4
I totally agree. All imputation credits are for tax already paid to the ATO. The imputation refunds were introduced to eliminate the double taxation on people with low taxable incomes who didn’t have enough other income to offset the company tax paid on their behalf. Why shouldn’t it be refunded to them?
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,963
- Reactions
- 12,449
Low taxable incomes doesn't always mean low real income though does it ?
Those who derive a large non taxable income from super are doing very nicely without getting another refund on top of that.
