Figures like that usually come from treasury and are stated over a long time frame. It's probably $55b over 10 years or something. Or course, if people adjust their portfolio to avoid being overtaxed then the $55b is fake - which is the most likely outcome.I just re read the post, my math's is crap, if the member has $300,000 in shares and they pay 5%.
That would mean they get a dividend of $15,000 and the franking credit would be 30% of that, so $5,000 tax return.
So how with me making high pension assumptions, 600,000 getting $5k works out to $55Billion is really weird.
I wish someone would ask silly Billy and Bowen, to please explain.
I just re read the post, my math's is crap, if the member has $300,000 in shares and they pay 5%.
That would mean they get a dividend of $15,000 and the franking credit would be 30% of that, so $5,000 tax return.
So how with me making high pension assumptions, 600,000 getting $5k works out to $55Billion is really weird.
I wish someone would ask silly Billy and Bowen, to please explain.
As PZ99 says, the $55B is over 10 yrs so about $5b a year.
If a dividend is fully franked it represents 70% net cash payment with 30% franking credit. Thus a $15k fully franked dividend divide by 7 times by 3 is approx $6,428 franking credit.
600,000 x 6,428 = 3.8B × 10 years = $38b
There are also quite a few outside SMSF that will be impacted. They have just built up share portfolio's in their individual names over the years and retire on the dividend payments. So they probably make up the difference
That looks a lot more like it, but we are working on the assumption everyone has $1m in their retirement account, which I would think is highly unlikely.
But it will be interesting to see the actual figures, when they come out, which I'm sure they will.
You think so? I'm not so sure about that as the Greens would support it and together with Labor would get it over. This should be made as a key election policy. 10's of thousands of seniors depend on it and it should be out there and talked about, people need to be clear as to how it would affect them. I think the whole idea should be dropped to be honest.I'm starting to think it will not get through the senate anyway.
The Greens were partially against it during the Batman byelection. If they hold the balance of power in the senate I expect they'll carve it up to something a lot less than than a $55b saving.You think so? I'm not so sure about that as the Greens would support it and together with Labor would get it over. This should be made as a key election policy. 10's of thousands of seniors depend on it and it should be out there and talked about, people need to be clear as to how it would affect them. I think the whole idea should be dropped to be honest.
Paul Keating on Super.
Raising Super to 12%? Introduce an longevity levy?
With all due respect... come on Paul. That's just shifting more wealth from the poor and working class to the upper class, again.
I mean, he's assuming that every person, across all profession and trades will live the average Australian life expectancy. No they don't. Most blue collar workers wouldn't make it to 85. So a longevity levy on them... unless it kicks in at way above the average wage, will just mean everyone pays but only those lucky few who eat well, had a relatively easier working life, will get to enjoy the insurance benefits.
Then there's the 12% super. That's just more cash for the investment managers. It will mean less wage for new job seekers. To pretend that an increased in super wouldn't affect employer's wage scale is just dreamin'.
The really funny thing is, Keating said when he introduced super, it was to add to the pension to give people an enhanced retirement.
In reality it is becoming more obvious, it is to make people forego wages to pay for their own pension, now he is complaining people might live too long and end up on a Government pension.
I wish he was so worried about his Government pension.
Well we might not like it, but what St Nick is saying is right, why would you scrimp and save to get $1M in super.Saint Nick has the answers....
https://thewest.com.au/business/you...w-to-live-well-on-so-much-less-ng-b881006119z
Well we might not like it, but what St Nick is saying is right, why would you scrimp and save to get $1M in super.
When you can have a ball, spend everything have $300k put in to super by your employer and have a better outcome.
Well we might not like it, but what St Nick is saying is right, why would you scrimp and save to get $1M in super.
When you can have a ball, spend everything have $300k put in to super by your employer and have a better outcome.
At least with the pension it is indexed, with the money you saved and put in your super, it can be lost in a week as is happening now.
The only difference is, if you have spent everything and are on a pension you are the salt of the earth a battler, if you have saved some money you are a capitalist pig that deserves anything the media and Government want to throw at you.
Trading isn’t about getting rich, but more about one day having the financial independence of being able to support yourself without an income.
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?