over9k
So I didn't tell my wife, but I...
- Joined
- 12 June 2020
- Posts
- 5,358
- Reactions
- 7,671
Nothing will happen. The political left is unelectable and the libs know it.Oops, got the facts wrong, again . Blinded by too many zeros. Should read half a million, not Billion ($ 544 Million to be precise ). A lot of dosh there, for just 2 people, possibly 4 under the old rules up to the start of July, this year.
Following on; Liberal MP Jason Falinski recons there should be MORE $ 100 Million SMSF's than the current 27 ! And the rules should not now be changed retrospectively .
Not much noise from Labor, yet, but the Gratten Institute is livid and shadow treasury spokesman, Jim Chalmers commented that tax concessions should be "sustainable and equitable". Fair enough. There won't be any more of these biggies, so.........
And the political right are too scared.Nothing will happen. The political left is unelectable and the libs know it.
Statistics, as one of our resident data experts here points out, not many people understand data analysis.Jeremy Cooper, now Challenger's chairman of retirement, makes an interesting point in today's AFR. Research shows a retiree with a $million in super, owed a 1/3 rd of this balance to tax concessions. Outside of super, he would only get $ 650,000.
The Grattan Institute is screaming about superannuation tax breaks costing the budget $35 Billion in lost revenue, with 1/2 of the benefits going to the top 1/5 th of income earners who already have income to fund their own retirement.
Challenger and Mercer's research suggests retirees drawing down an extra 1.5% each year ( just $4,300 ) would help the economy with a $9 Billion increase in GDP .
And the political right are too scared.
Superanuation Tax breaks to a few extremely wealthy and connected families that matches the total pension bill. Nothing to see hear.
They know they will eventually lose it but not till our budget situation is desperate.
Statistics, as one of our resident data experts here points out, not many people understand data analysis.
I presume that the $9bill increase in GDP is because of the multiplier effect, because there is no guarantee that
(a) The retirees would spend the extra,
(b) they would invest into something that generates income and thus attract some taxation.
I presume they mean all retirees drawing down extra, but they obviously don't understand the thinking of so many retirees.
They will not spend the extra just because they have to take it out, in fact because so many want to preserve their capital, they may actually reduce some spending.. and keep it in a non interest bearing check account. (My mother in law did just that - gifted the ANZ bank over a million bucks for 15 years because she did not want to pay extra tax on the earnings which she could not spend anyway living in a nursing home).
The top 1/5th would most likely have their affairs setup in trusts, companies and whatever other tax minimalisation vehicles their accountants and lawyers set up for them.
Someone who has a million bucks in Super and takes out 5% per year as pension , assuming a paltry return of 2% p.a has over 20 years before there is nothing left. For most retirees, thats probably enough, as retiring at 65, you will not need a lot of spending money at 85, assume you are lucky enough to live that long. But self funded retirees (I am one of them, and so many of my contemporaries er also) don't think like that.
I'm not astonished. If you look at the disclosed top 20 holders of any IPO, there are a mix of custodians (for institutions/ fund managers), SMSFs, trusts and individuals.Astonishing figures in today's AFR for the top SMSF's.
well IF you have a full service broker ( and an 'institutional account ) your broker rings YOU really early so you can buy some of that pre-IPO action ( and he/she gets a nice commission , maybe even from both ends of the trade )I'm not astonished. If you look at the disclosed top 20 holders of any IPO, there are a mix of custodians (for institutions/ fund managers), SMSFs, trusts and individuals.
If the IPO does well, and share price increases, then the early investors will be sitting on a tidy sum. If it slumps, then it's a tiny sum. I would suspect the really big SMSFs are the likes of APT or a mining speccie like CHN.
Until bits of the holding are sold, then there is little tax (only envy). IPOs generally don't usually pay dividends for a while, and if sold, CGT will apply, at a lower rate as the assets would mainly, overwhelmingly, be in an Accumulation account.
I suggest you read the Top 20 holdings more closely. They are the entrepreneurs, the directors and senior management (and family)well IF you have a full service broker ( and an 'institutional account ) your broker rings YOU really early so you can buy some of that pre-IPO action ( and he/she gets a nice commission , maybe even from both ends of the trade )
BECAUSE if there isn't enough interest at the big end of town the IPO goes nowhere ( not even close to listing )
I know of another frog in that muddy puddle ?nearly all of them with a higher nett worth than me , and that was my point , if you pay the bucks you get the service ( sometimes )
i NORMALLY don't pay the bucks because i rarley take big positions in one bite ( the BSL SPP was the exception )
i am very happy to carefully accumulate , even if the brokerage looks forbidding ( over time )
nibbling small lets me sample illiquid shares without dstorting the market
now if others use different strategies , that is fine by me , less competition , where i want to play ( i am quite happy to be the only frog in the puddle , as long as there is something in there i desire )
WHAT ?? do you hold ATM , TRA and MPP also ???I know of another frog in that muddy puddle ?
Not at all, just a frog..WHAT ?? do you hold ATM , TRA and MPP also ???
Indeed, to pass the bar, a fund can just invest in vangard etf and that is oki wonder if the tests will still apply when the market REALLY melts down and much bigger funds drift into negative yields as well
just asking
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?