The Albanese government

[wayneL]

The Libs will be pushing merde uphill to persuade people to ditch Labour becasue of the actions on large super funds. Even their own supporters and the well off super fund owners are onside with the decision.

The poll done by The Australian echoes these figures.

Next stop family trusts.

Guardian Essential poll: super changes backed by half of respondents – even among those with large balances​

Approval for Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton continues to sag amid cost of living squeeze

Katharine Murphy Political editor

@murpharoo
Tue 7 Mar 2023 01.00 AEDTLast modified on Tue 7 Mar 2023 07.16 AEDT


The Albanese government’s plan to reduce the generosity of tax concessions for people with superannuation balances over $3m is supported by 50% of Guardian Essential poll respondents – and the move is more popular among those with higher balances.

The latest survey of 1,141 voters finds 50% endorse Labor’s recent super tax shift, while 31% are on the fence and 19% oppose the change. It also finds 55% would support a further crackdown on family trusts.
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ing-support-crossbench-tax-breaks-for-wealthy
https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ing-support-crossbench-tax-breaks-for-wealthy
Most respondents (70%) who are aged under 55 and have less than $3m in their super account believe they will never accumulate that much. Only 23% of this cohort believe it is likely they will hit $3m.

Perhaps counterintuitively, the new poll indicates Labor’s decision to limit tax concessions for wealthy retirees is more popular among voters with higher accumulated superannuation balances.

Last week’s policy shift is supported by 55% of respondents with balances between $100,000 and $199,000, 58% of respondents with balances between $200,000 and $499,000, and 53% of people with balances of half a million dollars or more.

The survey also suggests voters have a clear understanding about the policy rationale for capping concessions.

More than half (59%) of respondents think the government wants to ensure super is used as retirement income and not as a tax shelter for the rich, 58% believe the change is about paying down debt and freeing up funds for services, while 52% say the policy is about making the system fairer and more sustainable.

Only 38% of respondents see the change as a strike against aspiration, or a broken election promise. The latest Guardian Essential data also indicates there is some community appetite to tighten up the rules governing family trusts to stop wealthy people engaging in tax minimisation (55% of respondents support that idea, 31% are on the fence and 15% oppose it).

Guardian Essential poll: super changes backed by half of respondents – even among those with large balances

Approval for Anthony Albanese and Peter Dutton continues to sag amid cost of living squeeze

www.theguardian.com

Newspoll shows majority support for super tax plan

The latest Newspoll shows a majority of voters approve of the government's superannuation tax plan, but Labour and PM down

thenewdaily.com.au

The politics of envy, same ol' same ol'

 

[Knobby22]

The politics of envy, same ol' same ol'

When even most Liberal voters are for it. Good thing for Albanese to go to election on. I am for it. When Pokie Machine Matheison, said he was upset; that sealed it for me.

 

[wayneL]

When even most Liberal voters are for it. Good thing for Albanese to go to election on. I am for it. When Pokie Machine Matheison, said he was upset; that sealed it for me.

I guess you are telling us your super balance is less than $3mil?

I guess the key here is to keep your super at $2,999,999.99

$3,000 ,000.01 and you're a rich capitalist pig and Albo will come after you.

Totally asinine IMO.

 

[SirRumpole]

I guess you are telling us your super balance is less than $3mil?

I guess the key here is to keep your super at $2,999,999.99

$3,000 ,000.01 and you're a rich capitalist pig and Albo will come after you.

Totally asinine IMO.

Didn't the Libs increase taxes on super payments without taking it to an election ?

Asinine twits.

 

[wayneL]

Didn't the Libs increase taxes on super payments without taking it to an election ?

Asinine twits.

Agreed. But this isn't about the clusterfark that is the Liberal Party (I don't trust them any more than Albo's ipso facto communist party), it is about a totally arbitrary threshold, which which the truly ruch will find some way of getting around anyway.

It is about these clowns trying to appear to screw the rich for kudos with the likes of yourself in a cynical ploy for popularity.

Meanwhile, anyone with a Super balance greater than 3 million, including Albo and his purulent acolytes, will have creatively side stepped the rules.

 

[SirRumpole]

Agreed. But this isn't about the clusterfark that is the Liberal Party (I don't trust them any more than Albo's ipso facto communist party), it is about a totally arbitrary threshold, which which the truly ruch will find some way of getting around anyway.

It is about these clowns trying to appear to screw the rich for kudos with the likes of yourself in a cynical ploy for popularity.

Meanwhile, anyone with a Super balance greater than 3 million, including Albo and his purulent acolytes, will have creatively side stepped the rules.

How do you make a threshold "un-arbitrary" ?

 

[wayneL]

How do you make a threshold "un-arbitrary" ?

Keep the rules the same for everyone?

 

[sptrawler]

The public is starting to get interested in politics, because it is hitting their pocket nerve.
About time IMO, Albo is a breath of fresh air, but it is still bad breath IMO.
The cap on super balances should be followed by a cap on negative gearing and a cap on the CGT free amount a PPR can have.
One scam is no more moral than another IMO.
Shutting one door, while leaving the others wide open, smells of self interest.
The only rentals that are massively negative geared are those that cost way more than can reasonably be expected to receive a positive income, so by definition they are a loss making tax dodge for speculative gain.
The same with retirees in multi million dollar mansions, that step down one street and pocket millions of dollars tax free, then wash rinse repeat.
It is just another tax free rort, same as zillions in super.

 

[wayneL]

The public is starting to get interested in politics, because it is hitting their pocket nerve.
About time IMO, Albo is a breath of fresh air, but it is still bad breath IMO.
The cap on super balances should be followed by a cap on negative gearing and a cap on the CGT free amount a PPR can have.
One scam is no more moral than another IMO.

If we cop all that then there should be other reforms.

For instance negating multiple levels of taxation on income, and CGT when swapping out investments.

Eg let's say i want to swap rio for bhp where your original holding has appreciated. It's not a realised capital gain, is it? Therefore levying tax on that transaction is theft.

Likewise, if there is a cap loss on the original holding in this same situation, there should be no cgt credit (AKA tax loss selling).

And... PPT should be sacrosanct IMO, as you are paying for it with after tax dollars. No multiple taxpaying on the same income. That is theft.

 

[sptrawler]

If we cop all that then there should be other reforms.

For instance negating multiple levels of taxation on income, and CGT when swapping out investments.

Eg let's say i want to swap rio for bhp where your original holding has appreciated. It's not a realised capital gain, is it? Therefore levying tax on that transaction is theft.

Likewise, if there is a cap loss on the original holding in this same situation, there should be no cgt credit (AKA tax loss selling).

And... PPT should be sacrosanct IMO, as you are paying for it with after tax dollars. No multiple taxpaying on the same income. That is theft.

I cant quite understand the rio, bhp example.
The prime residence should be sacrasanct up to a cettain amount, after that it isnt a home it is a tax free wealth storage device, no different to obscene amounts in super.
It has to be remembered the main engine room of our economy, our tax base our lifestyle, is middle Australia.
It isnt those on welfare and it isnt those who have megga bucks, it is those who go to work every morning and have their tax taken out of their pay, before they get it.
Any tax advantage given to those who can afford to buy and sell multi million dollar properties tax free, has to be made up by someone and it is usually middle Australia IMO.

 

[SirRumpole]

I cant quite understand the rio, bhp example.
The prime residence should be sacrasanct up to a cettain amount, after that it isnt a home it is a tax free wealth storage device, no different to obscene amounts in super.
It has to be remembered the main engine room of our economy, our tax base our lifestyle, is middle Australia.
It isnt those on welfare and it isnt those who have megga bucks, it is those who go to work every morning and have their tax taken out of their pay, before they get it.
Any tax advantage given to those who can afford to buy and sell multi million dollar properties tax free, has to be made up by someone and it is usually middle Australia IMO.

Yep, that's the pragmatic approach which should be taken, rather than extreme ideology like "all tax is theft", "politics of envy" blah, blah.

Fact is , you can't get blood out of a stone and if you need to raise revenue you have to go for people with the resources to pay rather than those who don't have the resources.

Trouble is, it's tough taking a baby's rattle away and the political will needs to be there to take the actions required.

 

[Belli]

One thought is, in Canberra at least, the local Government already imposes a tax on unrealised gains of home owners. The rates are calculated based on Unimproved Capital Value. Stay in a home for 20 years and overtime that UCV will increase - mine did last year by over 25% according to my rates notice. Sure they average five years of UCV for the purposes of calculating the annual rates but as the older valuations drop out the five year average will increase.

 

[mullokintyre]

Yep, that's the pragmatic approach which should be taken, rather than extreme ideology like "all tax is theft", "politics of envy" blah, blah.

Fact is , you can't get blood out of a stone and if you need to raise revenue you have to go for people with the resources to pay rather than those who don't have the resources.

Trouble is, it's tough taking a baby's rattle away and the political will needs to be there to take the actions required.

There is fo course another angle, namely looking at the expenditure side of things.
We almost never hear about the idea of not having to raise taxes by cutting back on expenditure, that just seems to keep right on going.
The salaries of public servants, the sponsorships, the absolute balls ups that have continued unabated in defence spending, cost blowuts in major government managed capital programs (Snow 2.0 perhaps), the DFAT overseas aid, the sheer volume of "representative Government" at Federal State and local level, the massive increase in Educational costs that still fail to give kids a basic level of literacy and numeracy.
The list is endless.
Just as in the case of the taxation discussion , the various interest groups will demand that their particular cost base is sacrosant, and it should be some other cast base, like private schools, or NDIS, or defence, or agriculture that should have their expenses reigned in.
Mick

 

[SirRumpole]

There is fo course another angle, namely looking at the expenditure side of things.
We almost never hear about the idea of not having to raise taxes by cutting back on expenditure, that just seems to keep right on going.
The salaries of public servants, the sponsorships, the absolute balls ups that have continued unabated in defence spending, cost blowuts in major government managed capital programs (Snow 2.0 perhaps), the DFAT overseas aid, the sheer volume of "representative Government" at Federal State and local level, the massive increase in Educational costs that still fail to give kids a basic level of literacy and numeracy.
The list is endless.
Just as in the case of the taxation discussion , the various interest groups will demand that their particular cost base is sacrosant, and it should be some other cast base, like private schools, or NDIS, or defence, or agriculture that should have their expenses reigned in.
Mick

Absolutely ,there is a lot of waste going on.

We would have a much more efficient government if we didn't have State governments for a start, but getting rid of States is like getting rid of crime, a nice idea but not practically possible.

Rudd tried to take over public hospitals, which was a good idea imo, pity it never went anywhere, but at least he had the guts to put the idea out there.

We need more discussion about streamlining our system of government, but I'm afraid it will all be talk, there will be inevitable accusations about "power grabs" from vested interests, ie State politicians and I don't think it will go anywhere, but I would be pleased to be proven wrong.

 

[Knobby22]

Keep the rules the same for everyone?

There is fo course another angle, namely looking at the expenditure side of things.
We almost never hear about the idea of not having to raise taxes by cutting back on expenditure, that just seems to keep right on going.
The salaries of public servants, the sponsorships, the absolute balls ups that have continued unabated in defence spending, cost blowuts in major government managed capital programs (Snow 2.0 perhaps), the DFAT overseas aid, the sheer volume of "representative Government" at Federal State and local level, the massive increase in Educational costs that still fail to give kids a basic level of literacy and numeracy.
The list is endless.
Just as in the case of the taxation discussion , the various interest groups will demand that their particular cost base is sacrosant, and it should be some other cast base, like private schools, or NDIS, or defence, or agriculture that should have their expenses reigned in.
Mick

We are being forced to increase expenditure to meet our defence requirements. We could easily find ourselves in a war with China within 3 years and now we are saddled with a trillion dollar debt.

And I don't think it is that bad. Basically its every dollar over $3mil is taxed at 30c in the dollar which means people that receive dividends don't get the imputation credit. They still get the dividend and the 30c in the dollar is still lower than if they left the money outside super. I would however want to see the threshold amount set to increase with inflation

The first 72 hours: How an attack on Taiwan could rapidly reach Australia

A blizzard of cyberattacks from China on Australia’s communications and electricity grid would cripple the nation, our defence panel warns.

www.theage.com.au

 

[basilio]

And I don't think it is that bad. Basically its every dollar over $3mil is taxed at 30c in the dollar which means people that receive dividends don't get the imputation credit. They still get the dividend and the 30c in the dollar is still lower than if they left the money outside super.

Sums it up well. I think it's a bit rich to be taking hundreds of thousands of dollars in dividends from your $10n superfund and then scream because you also wanted the imputation credits. Paying 30% tax on the amount over $3m ? Not even close to the current maximum tax band.

I do agree that if the Government is trying to balance the books and ensure that tax breaks for the very wealthy are controlled there are more issues to tackle. How that's done ?

 

[Belli]

And I don't think it is that bad. Basically its every dollar over $3mil is taxed at 30c in the dollar which means people that receive dividends don't get the imputation credit.

Maybe or maybe not.

According to the press release on the the Treasurer's web-site (noting it is headed as being from Treasury which is a strange protocol,) the proposals is

Note the phrase "in addition."

Also the methodology isn't on earnings as such but on a change in value i.e. unrealised gains, if the following calculation method in the press release is applied. Earnings has been redefined compared with what we normally expect earnings to be.

 

[Knobby22]

Maybe or maybe not.

According to the press release on the the Treasurer's web-site (noting it is headed as being from Treasury which is a strange protocol,) the proposals is

View attachment 154067

Note the phrase "in addition."

Also the methodology isn't on earnings as such but on a change in value i.e. unrealised gains, if the following calculation method in the press release is applied. Earnings has been redefined compared with what we normally expect earnings to be.

View attachment 154068

Note the word "earnings". It will be interesting to see how industry and retail funds are treated and they have a few years to work it out.
I think this will require the Super Funds to be less opaque in the future.

Many super balances, however, that are in the 3 million plus category are self managed and don't invest that way.
Some have big property portfolios and the really big boys ($100 mill +) like Wilson have mainly direct share investments.

 

[Belli]

Note the word "earnings". It will be interesting to see how industry and retail funds are treated and they have a few years to work it out.
I think this will require the Super Funds to be less opaque in the future.

Many super balances, however, that are in the 3 million plus category are self managed and don't invest that way.
Some have big property portfolios and the really big boys ($100 mill +) like Wilson have mainly direct share investments.

Yes, there is a lot to work out and currently all we are working off is a press release and words published in the media. Basically a lot of guesswork. Only when the draft legislation and its associated Explanatory Memorandum are released will we see what is actually proposed. As that is just over two financial years away - and an election - a lot can change in the interim. There will be heaps of negotiations between the Government and other, some self-interested, parties leading up to that. I don't see a need for many to freak out just yet. They can do that close to the event. For those who are retired by then they have an opportunity to restructure their financial arrangements to avoid the worst of it if the calculations indicate that.

As an aside, I do get the impression the current Government would prefer that superannuation isn't used as a vehicle for intergenerational wealth transfer. Be interesting how an account balance for the big players where non-resi property, which on average this accounts for some 10% of SMSF assets according to ATO data, is involved will be paid out on the death of a member. Many twists and turns ahead.

 

[SirRumpole]

I'm not an expert in this area, but taxing unrealised capital gains seems totally unfair.

Is there a rationale for doing this ?