As long as it is applied equally across all Australians, including politicians and high court judges, I will be happy with it.It just needs to be applied in the same manner. If it's retrospective in any way it applies to both civilians and pollies. If it's only on new money going in from 2025, same same.
Death has a way of dealing with these issues. Happens over time with closed schemes.
As long as it is applied equally across all Australians, including politicians
If it is a public service pension, my mother in law gets a small one, the father in law died about 30 years ago she gets 60% of his entitlement.I'm pretty sure my wife gets my pension when I cark it. Not sure if that's what you're talking about or if related to.
So what we really need to do, is put contracts out on all those PS types and ex pollies who benefit from the scheme.If it is a public service pension, my mother in law gets a small one, the father in law died about 30 years ago she gets 60% of his entitlement.
When she passes away it stops all together.
So what we really need to do, is put contracts out on all those PS types and ex pollies who benefit from the scheme.
Would save hundreds of millions of bucks.
Mick
They might invest it over seas, and pay 0% Australian tax on it.I would be happy if they put whatever limit they like on super, as long as those with more than the limit are allowed to extract it without penalty.
They will have to invest in something else that attracts tax, preferably above the 15% they were paying prior to taking it out.
Mick
I actually hate the fact that when there a situations of reduced tax rates for certain reasons they are called “forgone revenue”, in my opinion it puts the wrong idea into peoples head.A great article, that shows how super is the least of the evils, but the easiest to hit. So what stops the rich just moving the money from super, to the Sydney /Melbourne ponzi scheme, either just upgrade the McMansion and flip it for no tax, or use investment properties and hold them for 12 months and get the 50% CGT discount?
Lots of smoke and mirrors IMO.
If they are serious, this is the area they will hit, but as there are so many of them on the programme, I doubt it will be touched.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-02...ousing-property-tax-breaks-treasury/102032674
Treasury's data shows housing tax breaks cost more in forgone revenue than superannuation tax concessions do.
Various capital gains tax (CGT) exemptions cost almost $72 billion annually, including $48 billion on CGT exemptions for the family home, and another $23.7 billion in revenue foregone on CGT discounts for individuals, such as property investors and for trusts.
It is estimated that around 2.4 million people claimed $51.3 billion of rental deductions in 2019–20, resulting in a total tax reduction of $18.6 billion.
Of the total number of people with rental deductions, almost half (1.3 million) had a rental loss, known as negative gearing, which added up to total rental losses of $10.2 billion. These rental losses provided a tax benefit of around $3.6 billion in 2019–20.
Work-related expense deductions are also a big area of forgone revenue. Treasury says about 9.8 million individuals claimed $22.6 billion of work-related expense deductions in 2019–20, resulting in a total tax reduction of $8.3 billion.
And the GST exemption on food is expected to cost more than $8 billion in forgone revenue.
Dr Richardson says, while housing tax breaks cost more in foregone revenue, the political cost of scaling back negative gearing and CGT discounts for the wealthy may be greater.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the defined benefit portion isn’t affected, because it’s just adjusted for inflation which isn’t technically “earnings”Politicians defined benefits will have to be included. I'm on an Defence defined benefit type pension and I know how much that's worth in the pool. Just about any politician who has been in for 10 years will be well over the $3m mark. If they don't apply it to themselves then watch out. The problem is, it affects all sides of politics, so who is going to support that?
It would have to be individual member accounts, the “super fund” is just a pass through organisation, it’s not the owner of the assets.A very silly query.
Can someone enlighten me on whether it is the fund or the members in the fund who are to be taxed under the new legislation.
So if a fund has 5 members each holding $2m , the fund has $10m. Is this fund to be included under the legislation. Or as the members have only $2m. each it is exempt.
gg
A bit like those on welfare saying they deserve a rise and criticising workers for getting a tax break, life's full of contradictions.I actually hate the fact that when there a situations of reduced tax rates for certain reasons they are called “forgone revenue”, in my opinion it puts the wrong idea into peoples head.
It gives the impression that earnings first and foremost belongs to the government, and not the private citizens that earned it. When the earnings first and foremost belong to the person who earned it, what ever the tax whether it be 10% or 50% any revenue the government gets is extra revenue contributed by the tax payer, if a situation exists that the tax payer is eligible for a deduction or a lower tax rate, it shouldn’t ever be seen as the government forgoing anything, it was never there money to begin with.
Ah sptrawler, then there are those that work and want to work and those that are the perpetual bludgers. The Andy Capp's fo the world.A bit like those on welfare saying they deserve a rise and criticising workers for getting a tax break, life's full of contradictions.
touche !You would probably care a lot more about an investor two blocks away, if he could affect your investment, as a politician can. ?
I saw as well the quoteA bit like those on welfare saying they deserve a rise and criticising workers for getting a tax break, life's full of contradictions.
The super funds do not exist to look after members interests, they exist to cream as much money as they can get away with from members.Well, here's a self serving headline.
Industry funds urge Labor to use super tax savings to close balance gap
Paraphrasing Mandy Rice-Davies, "They would, wouldn't they".
Some of them are member owned, and are more member focused than others.The super funds do not exist to look after members interests, they exist to cream as much money as they can get away with from members.
They are a business, nothing more, nothing less.
Mick
True that.Some of them are member owned, and are more member focused than others.
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?