This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Superannuation, the ultimate government cash cow?

Jump to new
thanks your deep dives, Belli.
Social engineering at its worst.
 

Yes. However, in the meantime, should the legislation pass as is (and I agree there will be strong views and discussions on the matter) for those who will be adversely impacted, even if the legislation is reversed by a later Government, I doubt the reversal will be retrospective. So, for a time, a number could be right royally shafted for want of a better phrase.

And DB pensions are generally already taxed at marginal rates too albeit it with a rebate being applied. And they are adjusted according to CPI so there is seemingly no escape. Actually because the pension is taxed, for someone who receives $80k pa DB, they are financially worse off than those who receive $80k pa tax-free from super.

With DB pensions it isn't only former Federal public servants either. There are former state public servants, ADF personal, and even former employees of some private enterprises, e.g. banks. It's why I think there will be more than the 80,000 as stated by the Government who will be affected. I think the numbers presented by Government have been based only on superannuation funds and not the wider aspects of superannuation income sources. I suspect it has been generally ignored as there would be little public sympathy for those who receive a DB pension. Nevertheless, I do feel they should be treated fairly and to my mind that does not seem to be the case under some scenarios. However, that is only my view. I'm not making any judgement about the source of the DB pension and whether it's fair or not. It was a condition of their employment contract.
 

'bemused' wasn't the word that sprung to my mind . but knowing the way bureaucracy works ... neither did 'surprised'

the government have this inane tendency to build 'empires' underneath them to promote their own importance
and sadly Super is one of those areas most workers/income-earners care about , so more eyes are watching ( and rolling )
 
A good article on inheritance tax, as it's applied in the U.K, just so we have a reference to look back on if it is suggested. It looks complicated, but would fit in well with our social security system regarding the pension.

How to get around the £2m inheritance tax rule

Telegraph Money explains what to do to avoid an unexpected IHT bill
www.telegraph.co.uk
 
shafted... most likely
confused ... absolutely

judging by comments in the FirstLinks article, and elsewhere, people are floundering in their attempts to understand the implications:

Meg on SMSFs: negative earnings and the $3 million tax

There’s no good news in the draft legislation for 'Division 296 tax', the new name for the tax on super over $3 million. These worked examples show the flaw in taxing unrealised gains. And stop calling it a 30% tax.
www.firstlinks.com.au
 
Dona Ferentes said:
confused ... absolutely
Click to expand...

Completely understandable. It's certainly an additional complexity and a potentially large financial penalty. I do appreciate why many SMSF members are worried. Not really an issue for industry funds as I strongly doubt there would be many, if any, which would be in this situation as the big money is in SMSFs.

I believe one of the issues is various Governments in the past didn't take account of human nature or even care about it. Offer a low taxed environment leading to a tax-free one in retirement and of course people who can will take advantage of that. Especially since, originally, there was no limit as such on how much one could have in that concessionally taxed environment. The only real restraint was the concessional and non-concessional amounts for each member. The top limits for superannuation was always skewed to the relatively well off in any event and that is still the case in my opinion. People on the median wage don't have $27,500 or a spare $110,000 lying around each and every year.

Although the legislation is yet to be presented to Parliament, and probably will not be passed in its current form, on a personal basis, I am happy in a way to no longer having anything to do with a SMSF although I did take action to wind up the fund for different reasons.

I have no evidence for this but I would not be surprised if a number will restrict their future superannuation contributions to concessional only.
 
this comment got my attention:

It seems that a consequence, foreseen or otherwise, is to limit CG down the track being "lost" in the low tax Super environment . Looking at the Top 20 of IPOs, apart from institutional holdings, a significant number of "associated entities" of Directors amd Senior Management are SMSF holdings. Some of these shares they got at 0.2c or 1c or whatever, and then listing at, say, 20c can produce unrealised gains in orders of magnitude. Successful once listed, and the gains can be even bigger.

I know of one director in a small cap who has 2+ million shares at $5, in his SMSF. He got them 10 years ago for a pittance. He's only 50 y.o. ... no wonder there's selling pressure on that stock.
 
Dona Ferentes said:
I know of one director in a small cap who has 2+ million shares at $5, in his SMSF. He got them 10 years ago for a pittance. He's only 50 y.o. ... no wonder there's selling pressure on that stock.
Click to expand...

If he is 50 yo and the legislation passes as is, I reckon he is still stuffed even if he sells now as he won't meet the conditions of release for superannuation.
 
Belli said:
If he is 50 yo and the legislation passes as is, I reckon he is still stuffed even if he sells now as he won't meet the conditions of release for superannuation.
Click to expand...
he can sell them inside the fund, for the understood tax rate. For him a better outcome; for the listed stock, sustained selling pressure.

gotta like markets
 
Belli said:
I detect a certain lack of empathy for one's fellow man.

Funny how that happens when there is a considerable amount of money involved and it isn't yours.

Nevertheless there is an element of unfairness in the situation.
Click to expand...
today it's 'them ' but tomorrow it could be you

but a standard tactic for government revenue raising

the camel nose under the tent syndrome

i saw 'unrealized gains ' and knew there was a slippery slope ahead
 
A decent Financial Adviser and Accountant can easily guide anyone through these changes.

I don't understand the panic. If in doubt, pull some assets out of super and invest through a different structure.

Worst case scenario, you might have to pay some tax.
 
i see a ( potential ) tax on unrealized gains and a scenario of sustained inflation as 'double taxation '

but of course the government won't see that just like they were tardy to reacting to 'bracket creep ' in the '70s and '80s they will be too busy divvying up the extra revenue ( trying to buy your vote )
 
Pull some assets out of super ...do you not see the problem for most?
 
Junior said:
Worst case scenario, you might have to pay some tax.
Click to expand...
Interesting article in last Thursday's AFR ( 19 th October ) by that rag's economics editor , John " leftie " Kehoe : " Why retirees should pay their fair share of tax " .
The Graten Institute has been pushing for it ,of course , long before the recent Intergenerational Report's findings. But the real concern is Treasury . They have the ear of government .
It all depends now on how brave old mate , Jimbo feels about jumping into the " Tax reform " fire.
It's the oldies who have got the dough he's after. How to get at it without losing their vote in an election ?
 
he is already trying , now how many super-contributors well see the thin edge of a very wide wedge .. and give them the Shorten treatment
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
9K
Telamelo
T
Where will all the money come from to fund the stimulus?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
5K
tech/a
Credit and financial services targeted at Australians at risk of financial hardship
Replies
0
Views
2K
bigdog
How to avoid Shorten's plan to abolish the refund of excess franking credits
3 4 5
Replies
91
Views
13K
Value Collector
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...