wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,949
- Reactions
- 13,240
The politics of envy, same ol' same ol'
The politics of envy, same ol' same ol'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 squeezewww.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 downthenewdaily.com.au
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.The politics of envy, same ol' same ol'
I guess you are telling us your super balance is less than $3mil?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.
Didn't the Libs increase taxes on super payments without taking it to an election ?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.
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.Didn't the Libs increase taxes on super payments without taking it to an election ?
Asinine twits.
How do you make a threshold "un-arbitrary" ?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.
Keep the rules the same for everyone?How do you make a threshold "un-arbitrary" ?
If we cop all that then there should be other reforms.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.
I cant quite understand the rio, bhp example.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.
There is fo course another angle, namely looking at the expenditure side of things.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.
Absolutely ,there is a lot of waste going on.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
Keep the rules the same for everyone?
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.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
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.
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.
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.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.
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?