To superfunds in an individuals name.
They have tightened the laws now (bad luck gen x and y) but there are individuals with tens of million dollars worth of shares in superfunds getting the 30% franking return on top of the dividend.
Not true! Only need about 350k from memory.From 2017, worth a read, see how you are travelling.
https://www.news.com.au/finance/sup...y/news-story/ba09fe5f47f69202aa53deeb279b01d6
I thought this was particularly good summation of the current hubris over tax refunds for superannuates.
"....the one issue to arouse any passion is the spectacle of the most well-off among our retired screaming to high heaven over the proposal that, though granted the concession of paying no tax on income from superannuation, they should no longer receive tax refunds as though they were paying it. " Ross Gittins
The big lie in this whole debate is Labor presenting it as something which only affects the most well off in society."....the one issue to arouse any passion is the spectacle of the most well-off among our retired
Nobody's going to argue about those using clever tricks being hit but I fail to see a valid argument for removing a benefit paid to lower income earners whilst retaining it in full for those on a higher income. Doing so is just an incredibly lazy way of fixing one problem whilst ignoring the consequences of doing so. It's akin to cutting the road toll by simply banning cars.
Seems perfectly reasonable to me and I wouldn't be complaining.What Labor should say is this
"if you want to claim a franking credit rebate, then tell the ATO what your real income is (inclusive of tax exempt income), and if it's greater than $80k (say) then you don't get a rebate, otherwise you will".
The big lie in this whole debate is Labor presenting it as something which only affects the most well off in society.
They fail to mention that high income earners retain full benefits, zero change, and it's those on lower incomes plus those who use creative tricks to avoid tax which are about to be hit rather hard.
Nobody's going to argue about those using clever tricks being hit but I fail to see a valid argument for removing a benefit paid to lower income earners whilst retaining it in full for those on a higher income. Doing so is just an incredibly lazy way of fixing one problem whilst ignoring the consequences of doing so. It's akin to cutting the road toll by simply banning cars.
The media is much to blame here. If we had any decent journalists these days then we'd be having a "GST birthday cake" moment over that point. At least John Hewson had enough integrity to admit he couldn't answer the question when that one came up rather than fumbling something or changing the subject - credit where it's due, both sides had more integrity back then.
What Labor should say is this
"if you want to claim a franking credit rebate, then tell the ATO what your real income is (inclusive of tax exempt income), and if it's greater than $80k (say) then you don't get a rebate, otherwise you will".
The big lie in this whole debate is Labor presenting it as something which only affects the most well off in society.
They fail to mention that high income earners retain full benefits, zero change, and it's those on lower incomes plus those who use creative tricks to avoid tax which are about to be hit rather hard.
Nobody's going to argue about those using clever tricks being hit but I fail to see a valid argument for removing a benefit paid to lower income earners whilst retaining it in full for those on a higher income. Doing so is just an incredibly lazy way of fixing one problem whilst ignoring the consequences of doing so. It's akin to cutting the road toll by simply banning cars.
The media is much to blame here. If we had any decent journalists these days then we'd be having a "GST birthday cake" moment over that point. At least John Hewson had enough integrity to admit he couldn't answer the question when that one came up rather than fumbling something or changing the subject - credit where it's due, both sides had more integrity back then.
Like I said a while ago Humid, it will keep the working man in his box, just like the U.K.I wonder how many people who are affected by this actually voted for Labor in the last election?
I would suggest not many and the same again this election.......see how it works
So back to my 50pc idea.once 50pc of society is on welfare, the left is ensured of perpetual power by taxing to death the 49pc minority and" redistributing" the proceeds..
Like I said a while ago Humid, it will keep the working man in his box, just like the U.K.
.......
Labor is shutting both doors for the blue collar worker, you may think it is great, I think it is sad for the working person.
Like I said a while ago Humid, it will keep the working man in his box, just like the U.K.
have a think how you will generate enough investment income, to become self funded when you stop work, you either generate it from shares or from property.
Labor is shutting both doors for the blue collar worker, you may think it is great, I think it is sad for the working person.
Time will tell, but as has been proven time and time again, there is no one better at keeping the working man down than himself.
That is why Labor get away with it, they know from experience, how gullible and apathetic the worker is from experience as union organisers.
Unfortunately there isn't a job for everyone there, but if you're in the loop good for you, use the money wisely.Remember penalty rates
The liberal con is getting people to believe their something their not
Sound familiar
Bloody unions like at wheatstone 235k a year and barrow 250+ pa lol
I did 3 at barrow 2 at wheatstone
Not bad for a tradie
Now why on earth would he say that? It has nothing to do with his Industry Super Fund style. Like you said SP, some people choose to have a SMSF because they would rather pay $1,000 a year in fees for a portfolio full of term deposits and they know and are happy with earning less. Some people don't want any risk.Mr Silk, who runs the nation's biggest super fund with $145 billion under management, will tell the Conference of Major Super Funds on the Gold Coast that an inquiry is needed into SMSF performance, and that the probe should lead to a "revamped and smaller SMSF sector" with tighter regulatory safeguards.
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?