Seems like the Government in these dire fiscal times should look at creaming off some cash from those with 1 million or above.
Well here is an ATO list of SMSF balances, by value, just so people can be accurate when making statements.
Asset ranges 2013
$0–$50,000 = 6.7%
>$50,000–$100,000 = 5.1%
>$100,000–$150,000 = 5.4%
>$150,000–$200,000 = 5.1%
>$200,000–$500,000 = 24.7%
>$500,000–$1m = 23.4%
>$1m–$2m = 17.6%
>$2m–$5m = 9.9%
>$5m–$10m = 1.8%
>$10m = 0.4%
Total
100%
Actually if they started at $200k and worked up, it would catch a lot more.Seems like the Government in these dire fiscal times should look at creaming off some cash from those with 1 million or above.
Actually if they started at $200k and worked up, it would catch a lot more.
Actually if they started at $200k and worked up, it would catch a lot more.
Seems like the Government in these dire fiscal times should look at creaming off some cash from those with 1 million or above.
You have to be joking.
The Government of the day introduced a mandatory system for contributions to Superannuation funds, without any basic protection of contributor funds in place. Did a good job of creating another revenue/profit earning mechanism for the Financial Sector though. The fund managers can invest or lose contributors money without any real penalties or consequences applying. A bit like 'all care and no responsibility'. Oh shoot we lost 30/40/50 % of contributors funds, oh well another day another dollar.
Any suggestion related to creaming money from contributors funds makes a mockery of why compulsory superannuation was originally introduced.
The reality is we are going to have very big bills to pay going forward for the baby boomers' pensions and healthcare. The better off baby boomers are going to have to help pay for the not so well off baby boomers.
as we still can't afford to support the baby boomers reaching pensionable age who cannot self fund their retirement.
as we still can't afford to support the baby boomers reaching pensionable age who have chosen not to self fund their retirement.
lesm, exactly right.
The only change I'd make to what you've said is from this
to this
Plenty of us who are self funded have put money into savings and investments at the expense of a more affluent and luxurious lifestyle all through our working lives in order to be secure in retirement.
Are you seriously suggesting that should happen????
The mandatory superannuation system was actually introduced to address what you refer to as the reality.
It was known at least in the early seventies that Government would not be in a position to fully fund pensions once baby boomers started to retire.
Over time baby boomers who thought that they were well enough funded to support or be in a position to support themselves in retirement. A number of those were caught later in life, so at best they may only have been in a position to partly fund their retirement and then be funded via the pension. As in any age group or generation there are those that will be in a better position to fund their retirement than others. Some will be quite happy to live on the pension.
Therefore, why should those who have planned for a self funded retirement be penalised, due to the poor planning of those who did not?
Additionally, without appropriate protections in place super funds are vulnerable to market forces and the management of fund managers, whereas SMSFs are under the control of the individual who is managing their own fund.
The ability of different mangers or individuals will have an impact on how well contributor funds grow.
So, you are saying those who have been astute enough to plan and fund their retirement, so as not to be reliant or a burden upon the pension system have to subsidise the Government yet again. Be mindful that some of those individuals have been subsidising systems, such as the Australian Social Welfare System for years, due to the amount of tax they pay.
This is really circular situation. We (the Government) will not be able to fund you when you reach pensionable age as we won't have enough money and we will introduce new legislation mandating superannuation contributions.
Now that quite a number of you are in a position to self fund your retirement, without being a burden on the Social Welfare System we are going to double whammy you again and take a % of you super savings and profits to fund the pension, as we still can't afford to support the baby boomers reaching pensionable age who cannot self fund their retirement.
Maybe the Government and its advisors need to go back to the School of Financial Management. Would be interesting to know what modelling they did when the original numbers were calculated related baby boomers and the amount need to support them and/or if they considered potential loss scenarios, which decimated some peoples retirement funds, especially those whom had already retired and were not in a position to return to the work force or could effect a meaningful financial recovery in the time frame they were looking at.
By this logic, the only people who should pay taxes are those who rely on the public purse. Why should I subsidise all the public services that you consume?
Would you mind pointing out where that is stated or implied?
lesm said:So, you are saying those who have been astute enough to plan and fund their retirement, so as not to be reliant or a burden upon the pension system have to subsidise the Government yet again.
lesm said:The original post that was being referred to was related to creaming money out of superannuation accounts above a certain amount to subsidise funding pensions for baby boomers.
lesm, exactly right.
The only change I'd make to what you've said is from this
to this
Plenty of us who are self funded have put money into savings and investments at the expense of a more affluent and luxurious lifestyle all through our working lives in order to be secure in retirement.
By this logic, the only people who should pay taxes are those who rely on the public purse. Why should I subsidise all the public services that you consume?
Sure. Right here.
--
How's the equality of a system with a reduced tax rate on contributions, a reduced tax rate on earnings while in accumulation and then a zero tax rate, regardless of account balance, on entering pension phase? Who's going to pay for your healthcare?
You overlooked quoting the entire paragraph. It says nothing about people not paying taxes.
Selective reading and quoting is an old game
Back on your equality band wagon. One day Nirvana or paradise may exist where everything is equal, but doubt it will occur in our lifetimes, if ever.
So, giving something back to those of have contributed via the tax system for their entire working lives is something that you have an issue with?
Should be a good weekend for fishing, guessed you would bite:
So then what are you saying? Super should be taxed or it shouldn't?
ETA: I assumed that when banco said cream off he meant tax. Maybe he just meant take.
if anyone can give me an economic rational as to why the below is equitable and good for the budget I'm all ears.
if anyone can give me an economic rational as to why the below is equitable and good for the budget I'm all ears.
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?